If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[Cearbhall]

Are we shifting the argument from why abortion is wrong to why rape is wrong? Rape is wrong for completely different reasons than for why abortion is wrong.

Explain why exactly it is that you think that pregnancy should be illegal in cases of rape. You've been going on and on about choice, and it's getting a bit cringe-worthy, as DogmaHunter said.

Again, I'd argue that a man who knows abortion is possible might be more inclined to rape women because they think even if she gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem.

Oh man. I can't even fathom this. You want to take away part of my bodily autonomy because it's one of a million things that might influence a man's decision to rape me. Why don't you just lock me in a steel box? Because it's not like it's up to me as an adult what level of risk I'm willing to take, or anything...

Can you begin to see how using evil to solve evil only causes more evil?

We don't consider abortion to be evil, and you know that. What a silly question.

 

[Dave-W]

Honestly, in my eyes, that makes you a dangerous person.

Good. In Acts 17 we were described as "the men who turned the world upside down." That is a dangerous occupation.

 

[Cearbhall]

Good. In Acts 17 we were described as "the men who turned the world upside down." That is a dangerous occupation.

That's not very comforting.

 

[Chriliman]

You're being pro-choice here, especially by implying that the death of the baby is just a side effect of her choice.

First of all, I appreciate that you're actually thinking this through and trying to be rational, that's a good sign. I am pro-choice when in comes to choosing to save your own self from dying by taking another's life.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: The baby isn't the one hurting her. Why does she have the right to kill her own innocent child to save her life? What mother would do such a thing? And who gets to decide that the risk is great enough for her to do this?

It requires an honest doctor to honestly determine that the pregnancy will cause the woman to die. The woman then has to decide if she values her own physical life over the babies physical life or vise versa. Now, here's the interesting bit, if a woman who is in this position has faith in God, she may pray that she and her baby live through the incredible odds against them and if they do both live through it, this woman's faith will be vastly increased. In this case having faith in God lead to a miraculous event of goodness. So in a situation like that, faith plays a key part in having a good outcome.

Now you can discount faith all you want, but you can't prove that faith in God does not cause good things to happen.

No, we really can't. Your particular spot on the spectrum of views is not automatically the objective and logical spot. But perhaps that's the problem. You think that you alone are constructing your views on abortion without bias.

I only try to think rationally about all issues. I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong.

 

[Dave-W]

No. Rather, you aren't comprehending the point being made.

That point being that someone who gets raped did not consent to sex.
If this rape resulted in pregnancy, it means that the victim (yes, VICTIM) did not consent to the possibility of being pregnant.

Meaning that the victim (yes, VICTIM) had no choice in the matter.

Which is a direct refutation of your very own argument - that one should live with their choices - good or bad.

I am not the one addressed here but I want to chime in on the rape part - and I think I have a say in this since I am the product of a date rape.

By telling the mother it is ok to kill her unborn baby, you make the baby the victim. You can try to hide it in the smokescreen of "it is only tissue" or "it is not a person." But the fact is - Here I am and I am a person. If abortion was legal in the 1950s, I would have been the victim of a murder - my dad would have forced her to get me aborted whether she wanted that or not.

So when you argue from that viewpoint you are telling me I have no right to exist. I do not agree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good. In Acts 17 we were described as "the men who turned the world upside down." That is a dangerous occupation.

Only making it worse.

You thinking that it is "good" that I might consider you a "dangerous person" is also quite ...what's the word.... hmmm... perhaps "threatening".

O well.... continue enjoying the fruits of the free secular society that you apparantly don't care for.

 

[Dave-W]

O well.... continue enjoying the fruits of the free secular society that you apparantly don't care for.

You are right. I do care for a free society; but for a secular society - not so much.

 

[Chany]

This is a completely new subject.

Actually, it's not. You said "Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad." Therefore, unnatural GM foods, in vitro fertilization, cars, clothes, computers, and anything else not found in nature should reasonably be considered bad.

Are we shifting the argument from why abortion is wrong to why rape is wrong? Rape is wrong for completely different reasons than for why abortion is wrong.

Again, I'd argue that a man who knows abortion is possible might be more inclined to rape women because they think even if she gets pregnant she can just kill the baby, no problem. Can you begin to see how using evil to solve evil only causes more evil?

No, I am talking about aborting a pregnancy that results from a rape.

Your argument is built upon a very big hypothetical that I have no reason to accept and that goes against what psychologists believe rapists are like. A rapist seeks a)power over the victim, b) sexual gratification through sadistic behavior (think serial killer type people), and/or c) to hurt the victim through the use of sexual violence. Rapists tend to be more angry, have less empathy, and display anti-social personality traits. In other words, these are people who could care less about the person they are raping and could not care about pregnancy. If anything, the lack of abortion could make rapists who are motivated by b) and c) more inclined to rape, because their goal is to inflict as much harm as possible. I would be inclined to believe that a psychologically damaging rape becomes worse when you have a constant reminder of your rapist for at least the next nine months. Therefore, rapists motivated by b) and c) would actually be more willing to rape if abortion is illegal because pregnancy fulfills their desires more. Therefore, your argument is moot.

Also, you are already assuming abortion to be morally wrong, which is pointless to use as a premise because we are arguing about the morality of abortion.

 

[Belk]

I am not the one addressed here but I want to chime in on the rape part - and I think I have a say in this since I am the product of a date rape.

By telling the mother it is ok to kill her unborn baby, you make the baby the victim. You can try to hide it in the smokescreen of "it is only tissue" or "it is not a person." But the fact is - Here I am and I am a person. If abortion was legal in the 1950s, I would have been the victim of a murder - my dad would have forced her to get me aborted whether she wanted that or not.

So when you argue from that viewpoint you are telling me I have no right to exist. I do not agree.

Tell us how this "right to exist" works please. Does this right to exist extend to any and all children I might have had if I was not snipped?

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, it's not. You said "Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad." Therefore, unnatural GM foods, in vitro fertilization, cars, clothes, computers, and anything else not found in nature should reasonably be considered bad.

Key word in my statement was "reasonably". Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. This means for all the things you listed, we'd actually have to discuss and figure out the reason as to why each is good or why each could be considered bad. If we actually did this we'd be drastically changing the subject, so yes you are trying to change the subject. Lets get back to why taking innocent life for any other reason other than self defense is morally wrong.

However, I've made my stance clear, if you disagree that's fine, we can agree to disagree for now.

No, I am talking about aborting a pregnancy that results from a rape.

Your argument is built upon a very big hypothetical that I have no reason to accept and that goes against what psychologists believe rapists are like. A rapist seeks a)power over the victim, b) sexual gratification through sadistic behavior (think serial killer type people), and/or c) to hurt the victim through the use of sexual violence. Rapists tend to be more angry, have less empathy, and display anti-social personality traits. In other words, these are people who could care less about the person they are raping and could not care about pregnancy. If anything, the lack of abortion could make rapists who are motivated by b) and c) more inclined to rape, because their goal is to inflict as much harm as possible. I would be inclined to believe that a psychologically damaging rape becomes worse when you have a constant reminder of your rapist for at least the next nine months. Therefore, rapists motivated by b) and c) would actually be more willing to rape if abortion is illegal because pregnancy fulfills their desires more. Therefore, your argument is moot.

Also, you are already assuming abortion to be morally wrong, which is pointless to use as a premise because we are arguing about the morality of abortion.

I wouldn't try to build your entire argument for abortion on rape because abortion due to rape is a very small percentage of the over all abortions done. Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest. Lets try to determine the real reason as to why abortion can be considered morally wrong when the woman's life is not in danger due to the pregnancy. We could even leave rape and/or incest out of the equation because it only accounts for less than 1% of all the reasons to get an abortion.

Again, lets think rationally here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not the one addressed here but I want to chime in on the rape part - and I think I have a say in this since I am the product of a date rape.

By telling the mother it is ok to kill her unborn baby, you make the baby the victim.

If you are simply going to continue to misrepresent my position on this issue, then there is no point in continuing the conversation.

I am speaking from the perspective of the woman who has a right to bodily autonomy.

You completely ignore that part.
You completely ignore the rights of the mother.

You can try to hide it in the smokescreen of "it is only tissue" or "it is not a person."

I hide behind nothing.
I stand firmly behind the right of bodily autonomy.

No person's rights have priority over another person's rights.

But let's not pretend here as if you think a fetus has the same rights as a human. You don't believe that. If you did, then you would agree that every single miscarriage should be investigated. But you don't.

So clearly, you don't really believe that a fetus should be treated in the exact same way as any human.

Furthermore, even if we would concede that a fetus is a human with the same rights, your position simply becomes even more problematic.

Because no human has the right to demand the use of a body of another human to survive against that other human's will.

But the fact is - Here I am and I am a person. If abortion was legal in the 1950s, I would have been the victim of a murder - my dad would have forced her to get me aborted whether she wanted that or not.

If you are the result of a date rape, then your father would be a rapist and wouldn't be in any position to tell his victim what she should or shouldn't do.

In my view, your mother has the choice to do what she wants.
I wouldn't force her to get an abortion. It would be her decision.

You are the one here who is trying to take choice away from people.
You are the one who is advocating forcing humans to make their body available for another to use to survive.

I firmly stand against such a concept.
Nothing you have said here, no argument you have presented, convinces me that I should change my position on that.

You continue to speak about "rights" as if they are the end-all, be-all.
And I agree. But you are the one who ignores rights of people here, not me.
You deny the rights of the woman to decide what can and cannot happen to and in her body.

If you wish to change my mind, that is what you need to argue....
It's not about the fetus. It's about the person that that fetus finds itself in.
That person has rights too. Rights that you blatantly ignore.

So when you argue from that viewpoint you are telling me I have no right to exist. I do not agree.

I never said that.
Stop with that strawman already.

What I said is that women have a right to bodily autonomy and that this right can't be negated by the rights of others.

Just like your right to exist can't overrule my right to keep my kidney's.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are right. I do care for a free society; but for a secular society - not so much.

The alternative to a secular society is a theocracy.

A theocracy can't be free.

 

[Dave-W]

But let's not pretend here as if you think a fetus has the same rights as a human. You don't believe that. If you did, then you would agree that every single miscarriage should be investigated. But you don't.

Did you even read my post #85? Allow me to refresh your memory:

I think that investigating miscarriages would be in order, and prosecution against the woman (or anyone else for that matter) who engaged in risky behavior that would knowingly put the viability of the baby in flux.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did you even read my post #85? Allow me to refresh your memory:

I indeed missed that post.

I'm quite shocked.

This means that you would agree to the following scenario:
- woman is pregnant without knowing it.
- woman drinks something that causes miscarriage
- woman is jailed for involuntary manslaughter.

Thank goodness you aren't a lawmaker.


So, then I guess that you are also a proponent of the idea that if I am a match to donate bone marrow to you, you should be able to come to my house and force me to donate bone marrow or put me in jail for murder?



So it seems we have come to a point where we won't be able to agree at all.

You are of the opinion that the rights of a person can override the rights of another person.

I don't share that opinion.

For me, the rights of one person can't be overruled or negated by the rights of another.

Rights of person A don't have priority over the rights of person B.

 

[Dave-W]

So when you argue from that viewpoint you are telling me I have no right to exist. I do not agree.

I never said that.
Stop with that strawman already.

What I said is that women have a right to bodily autonomy and that this right can't be negated by the rights of others.

Just like your right to exist can't overrule my right to keep my kidney's.

Actually, you are saying that. What happens to my right to exist had my mom decided to abort me because she was single and pregnant?

 

[Dave-W]

So, then I guess that you are also a proponent of the idea that if I am a match to donate bone marrow to you, you should be able to come to my house and force me to donate bone marrow or put me in jail for murder?

Well - I would not ask it of you for me; but if it was for one of my kids or my wife - I very well might be coming at you in that way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, you are saying that.

No, I'm not.

I think I know better what my opinion is then you.

What happens to my right to exist had my mom decided to abort me because she was single and pregnant?

Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.

Just like my freedom to swing my arm, stops at your nose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well - I would not ask it of you for me; but if it was for one of my kids or my wife - I very well might be coming at you in that way.

What a non-answer.

Good job also on ignoring this:

This means that you would agree to the following scenario:
- woman is pregnant without knowing it.
- woman drinks something that causes miscarriage
- woman is jailed for involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Dave-W]

Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.

So my right to exist ends at her right to convenience?

 

[bhsmte]

You are right. I do care for a free society; but for a secular society - not so much.

What would you replace a secular society with? And how would that society be "free"?