I am a Suction Machine in an Abortion Clinic (1 Viewer)

[doughgirl]

Coffee said, "I have been civil. You will do the same, or I will end this conversation with you, and continue to argue with anyone who can keep a civil tongue. If you really believe that I am running away from your debate becuase you are right and I can't deal with it, you are again making up things that I have not said, and you are wrong."

And I have been civil. Do you see the smilies next to the posting screen? We have the option of using them to make a statement or to show expression. Everyone does it. If you find using these offensive then so be it don't do it.
If anyone on here gets bashed its those on the pro-life side.

I will state my opinion like everyone else does. I have been called names, been jeered at as well and I am not crying about it. If you fail to answer the questions for whatever reasons that is your business, no one will force you.
I know the questions are hard and most pro-abortion advocates can't answer them. Their silence makes a statement and so does yours.

 

[Felicity]

Please; tell me the difference.

I would see the two, freedom and license, as effectively the same; each means the ability to make choices for one's self, and each is bounded by the rights of others, which should not be infringed upon. The only difference would be in degree, and therefore is subjective; if it is a choice I would want for myself, it is "Freedom," and if it is a choice I would not make myself, it is "license." What is your definition?

I'm not sure of what you mean by the distinction you are making about whether you would choose something or not....

The difference betwee freedom and license is that "responsibility" we were discussing....

The difference in "degree" makes ALL the difference. Freedom respects wisdom and responsibility whereas license disregards those and replaces them with desire and willfulness.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=licentiousness

li·cense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lsns)
n.

Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.

Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See Synonyms at freedom.

Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness.


li·cen·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-snshs)
adj.
Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
Having no regard for accepted rules or standards.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I'm not sure of what you mean by the distinction you are making about whether you would choose something or not....

The difference betwee freedom and license is that "responsibility" we were discussing....

The difference in "degree" makes ALL the difference. Freedom respects wisdom and responsibility whereas license disregards those and replaces them with desire and willfulness.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=licentiousness

li·cense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lsns)
n.

Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.

Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See Synonyms at freedom.

Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness.


li·cen·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-snshs)
adj.
Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
Having no regard for accepted rules or standards.

Beautifully put, and I thank you for it. This makes perfect sense to me. Now, how would you relate it to the topic at hand?

My distinction was to do with the nebulousness of the line between freedom and license; your definitions here state that license is "excessive freedom," and that it is outside the realm of proper, accepted behavior. Who gets to decide what is excessive? Society would seem the obvious answer, but can we the people really agree on a definition of accepted behavior? It seems that we have only done so in the largest, most general terms; in smaller and more specific realms, such as, say, abortion and sexual proclivities and practices, we are constantly at war as to what is acceptable, and what is proper. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is righteousness. I was trying to state that if I were to call your actions "free," it would be because I would make the same choice, perform the same action; it is accepted, proper behavior to me. If it is a choice I would not make, an action I would not perform, I would probably term it license.

 

[Felicity]

Beautifully put, and I thank you for it. This makes perfect sense to me. Now, how would you relate it to the topic at hand?

My distinction was to do with the nebulousness of the line between freedom and license; your definitions here state that license is "excessive freedom," and that it is outside the realm of proper, accepted behavior. Who gets to decide what is excessive? Society would seem the obvious answer, but can we the people really agree on a definition of accepted behavior? It seems that we have only done so in the largest, most general terms; in smaller and more specific realms, such as, say, abortion and sexual proclivities and practices, we are constantly at war as to what is acceptable, and what is proper.

I believe that the only reason that there is "war" over these issues is because people are defending their personal "desires" and "willfulness." I believe that if the issue is looked at objectively, the facts bear out a standard of behavior and acknowledge wise "choices" rather than the nebulous "preferences" of individuals.

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is righteousness. I was trying to state that if I were to call your actions "free," it would be because I would make the same choice, perform the same action; it is accepted, proper behavior to me. If it is a choice I would not make, an action I would not perform, I would probably term it license.

I disagree--I believe we should and can look at things that are clear and empirically evidenced and use the capacity of objective reason to determine what is the most objectively moral choice. A stance that presents the least objective contradiction indicates the most moral choice.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I believe that the only reason that there is "war" over these issues is because people are defending their personal "desires" and "willfulness." I believe that if the issue is looked at objectively, the facts bear out a standard of behavior and acknowledge wise "choices" rather than the nebulous "preferences" of individuals.

I disagree--I believe we should and can look at things that are clear and empirically evidenced and use the capacity of objective reason to determine what is the most objectively moral choice. A stance that presents the least objective contradiction indicates the most moral choice.

All right, I'll take that. Go ahead, then. What is your position on the objective standard of acceptable behavior?

 

[Felicity]

All right, I'll take that. Go ahead, then. What is your position on the objective standard of acceptable behavior?

That's a very broad question. Do you mean in reference to the morality of the abortion choice? I've outlined that on these threads many many times over. Here's the (probably) most succinct explanation, although it doesn't delve into the morality...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=97540&postcount=475

 

[CoffeeSaint]

That is, without a doubt, the best reasoned and most logical exposition of the personhood on a fetus that I have heard. I'm honestly very impressed, and I thank you for pointing it out to me; I know how tiresome it can get to have to keep repeating one's self to everyone who comes along in the middle of the debate.

I will still take issue, however, with your conclusion. While I have alluded to my belief that a fetus is not deserving of full rights as a person, an argument I cannot maintain at the moment in the face of what you have posted, the personhood or non-personhood of the fetus is really only a secondary consideration for my position. My position on this is that you have two beings, who I am perfectly willing to accept as persons for now, who are in conflict. On the one hand, you have the fetus, which has the inheent right to life, and which requires the mother's body to live, as our technology stands now, until a non-specific time somewhere in the third trimester. On the other hand, you have the mother, who has the inherent right to liberty; the definition of liberty must include the ability to determine the course of your own life, and to control your own body and mind. If the state were to take away my right to move freely, it would be an infringement of my liberty; thus, the state cannot handcuff me to the wall. If I, as an adult citizen of sound mind and body, choose to smoke cigarettes, the state cannot stop me from doing so, even though my choice has many implications for the state, and for society as a whole. Still, it is my choice; it is my liberty. If I choose to cut off my own hand, the state cannot tell me no. It is my choice.

The issue, then, is does the mother's right to liberty give her the freedom to kill the fetus within her? Put another way, does the fetus's right to survive give it the freedom to enslave the mother, its only possible means of support and survival? Even if you accept that both of these beings are persons, still their rights are in conflict, and that conflict cannot easily be solved, if we remain objective. Do you have a solution for this aspect of the problem?

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

That's a very broad question. Do you mean in reference to the morality of the abortion choice? I've outlined that on these threads many many times over. Here's the (probably) most succinct explanation, although it doesn't delve into the morality...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=97540&postcount=475

Boy am I glad you are on our side. I am impressed with your definition of a person God Bless

 

[Felicity]

Thank you both--however--there are several on these forums that think I'm full of malarkey....everyone is entitled to an opinion--but I appreciate yours.:mrgreen:

My position on this is that you have two beings, who I am perfectly willing to accept as persons for now, who are in conflict. .....you have the fetus, which has the inheent right to life, ..... On the other hand, you have the mother, who has the inherent right to liberty;

As we are discussing on a different thread--I believe the right to freedom is secondary and dependent upon the right to life. But anyway...I'll address this point from a different angle here...

the definition of liberty must include the ability to determine the course of your own life, and to control your own body and mind.

The woman who becomes pregnant has determined the course of her own life by willfully engaging in the activity that has the possible outcome of pregnancy. She is FREE to abstain--and she is FREE to engage. The consequences of the free choice are such that an unintended--but known possible outcome could occur--that is where RESPONSIBILITY comes into the picture in the course of exercising one's freedom.

If the state were to take away my right to move freely, it would be an infringement of my liberty; thus, the state cannot handcuff me to the wall.

And this is exactly what I think a woman who aborts is doing to the unborn human in her womb.

If I, as an adult citizen of sound mind and body, choose to smoke cigarettes, the state cannot stop me from doing so, even though my choice has many implications for the state, and for society as a whole.

And there are currently laws which restrict smoking. I know that is not a complete response, but nonetheless...

Still, it is my choice; it is my liberty. If I choose to cut off my own hand, the state cannot tell me no. It is my choice.

You will not find a doctor that can legally maim you without the justification of preserving or protecting your life. And if you choose to cut off your own arm--the state CAN intervene because you are a threat to yourself. Likewise, the state can intervene if you are a threat to another human being. Abortion is a threat to another human being.

The issue, then, is does the mother's right to liberty give her the freedom to kill the fetus within her? Put another way, does the fetus's right to survive give it the freedom to enslave the mother, its only possible means of support and survival?

Is it justifiable to enslave another human who has no responsibility for his or her existence as is the case of the fetus, in preference of the mother who had the freedom to choose to engage in the act that brought the fetus into existence?

Even if you accept that both of these beings are persons, still their rights are in conflict, and that conflict cannot easily be solved, if we remain objective. Do you have a solution for this aspect of the problem?

Again--the mother abused her freedom if she is unwilling to accept the responsibility for the possible consequences of her free choice. Therefore, there is no conflict. The 'choice" was already made--it is the responsibility to that choice that is the issue.

 

[steen]

the personhood or non-personhood of the fetus is really only a secondary consideration for my position.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
" In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. "

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Thank you both--however--there are several on these forums that think I'm full of malarkey....everyone is entitled to an opinion--but I appreciate yours.:mrgreen:
As we are discussing on a different thread--I believe the right to freedom is secondary and dependent upon the right to life. But anyway...I'll address this point from a different angle here...

The woman who becomes pregnant has determined the course of her own life by willfully engaging in the activity that has the possible outcome of pregnancy. She is FREE to abstain--and she is FREE to engage. The consequences of the free choice are such that an unintended--but known possible outcome could occur--that is where RESPONSIBILITY comes into the picture in the course of exercising one's freedom.


And this is exactly what I think a woman who aborts is doing to the unborn human in her womb.


And there are currently laws which restrict smoking. I know that is not a complete response, but nonetheless...

You will not find a doctor that can legally maim you without the justification of preserving or protecting your life. And if you choose to cut off your own arm--the state CAN intervene because you are a threat to yourself. Likewise, the state can intervene if you are a threat to another human being. Abortion is a threat to another human being.

Is it justifiable to enslave another human who has no responsibility for his or her existence as is the case of the fetus, in preference of the mother who had the freedom to choose to engage in the act that brought the fetus into existence?


Again--the mother abused her freedom if she is unwilling to accept the responsibility for the possible consequences of her free choice. Therefore, there is no conflict. The 'choice" was already made--it is the responsibility to that choice that is the issue.

So the basis of this seems to be the question of responsibility, correct? Thart the mother has chosen her path, and the responsible act would be to carry the child to term?

I have two problems with this; I'll give you the larger one first, but I'm very curious as to how you would answer the second, as well.
First, I do not understand how an abortion is seen as an irresponsible choice. It seems that in making that judgement, you (and by "you" I mean my generic, pro-life opponents; if you are not doing this, please explain your understanding of an irresponsible abortion) are taking every instance, of every woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy, and tarring them all with the same brush, that of the promiscuous woman who has multiple abortions in order to continue her sexual activities without any concern for the consequences. This is, first, an unfair characterization, and second, a moral judgement, not necessarily the basis for a law. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable; they are not earned, not in a legal sense. We may think of them as earned, and I do, but that is not the foundation of the law. We cannot use the laws to make moral judgements.

Even in terms of a moral argument, what does it mean to be responsible? Does it mean taking care of another person? Does it mean dealing with the effects caused by your actions? Does it mean making the right choice? How do we know what the right choice is? If I run over my neighbor's cat, the responsible thing to do is to deal with the consequences of my actions -- but how? Is it enough if I tell them what I did? Do I need to apologize? Do I need to pay for the cat's cremation? Do I need to buy them a new cat? Which is the responsible act? Clearly, it would be irresposible to drive off and pretend that nothing happened, but that is not, to come back to the issue, analogous to abortion.
When a woman gets an abortion, she is dealing with the reality, rather than running away and pretending nothing happened: she considers the pros and cons, often goes through a very long and intense period of soul searching; she makes a difficult decision, and spends the rest of her life dealing with the consequences of that decision. This is carrying out her responsibilities. If she pretended she wasn't pregnant, and hoped the baby would just go away, that would be irresponsible. If she carried the child to term, gave birth in an alley and left the baby there, that would be irresponsible, because it is not a considered act. And in some cases, abortion is not a considered act -- but in some cases, it is. Therefore, I do not see taking responsibility for one's actions as a justification for banning abortion.

The second objection is: what about rape? Why should the woman have to take responsibility when she did not have a choice?

 

[Felicity]

First, I do not understand how an abortion is seen as an irresponsible choice.

The abortion is not the irresponsible choice, the having sex when one is UNWILLING to accept the known possible consequences without denying the rights of another individual that may simply come into existence at the wrong place at the wrong time. It is the FIRST choice that is IRRESPONSIBLE. The SECOND choice, that of elective abortion at the desire of the aborting woman, is immoral and unjustified.

It seems that in making that judgement, you (and by "you" I mean my generic, pro-life opponents; if you are not doing this, please explain your understanding of an irresponsible abortion) are taking every instance, of every woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy, and tarring them all with the same brush, that of the promiscuous woman who has multiple abortions in order to continue her sexual activities without any concern for the consequences.

No--of course there are mitigating circumstances. The culpability of the immoral act is very much influenced by the circumstances of the individual person. However, there is NO INSTANCE where it is not immoral if the child does not pose a medical threat to the woman who has the right to protect her own life.

This is, first, an unfair characterization, and second, a moral judgement, not necessarily the basis for a law.

Our laws do legislate morality in that order and peace is valued and social well being is promoted. These are things that are "values" and very much why we have any and every law.

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable; they are not earned, not in a legal sense. We may think of them as earned, and I do, but that is not the foundation of the law. We cannot use the laws to make moral judgements.

Yes--inalienable--endowed upon us at our creation. When is a human created? When he comes into existence--when does he come into existence--when the sperm and egg merge and a new separate entity is formed. These rights are not "conferred" at any particular stage of functioning--they are INALIENABLE from each and every individual human being's beginning.

Even in terms of a moral argument, what does it mean to be responsible? Does it mean taking care of another person? Does it mean dealing with the effects caused by your actions? Does it mean making the right choice? How do we know what the right choice is?

It means dealing with the consequences of our actions ourselves without causing additional detriment to others in the most rational and reasonable way possible. That is being responsible.

When a woman gets an abortion, she is dealing with the reality, rather than running away and pretending nothing happened: she considers the pros and cons, often goes through a very long and intense period of soul searching; she makes a difficult decision, and spends the rest of her life dealing with the consequences of that decision. This is carrying out her responsibilities. If she pretended she wasn't pregnant, and hoped the baby would just go away, that would be irresponsible. If she carried the child to term, gave birth in an alley and left the baby there, that would be irresponsible, because it is not a considered act. And in some cases, abortion is not a considered act -- but in some cases, it is. Therefore, I do not see taking responsibility for one's actions as a justification for banning abortion.

But detriment is caused to another human and thus it is not the most rational and reasonable way to be responsible. Ultimately, she is choosing her own will over the right to life of the other human that is under her complete control. To kill this other human rather than letting the situation resolve itself in 9 months and some effort at labor and then the signing of adoption papers is being an irrational master over the life of the another. The most rational thing to do would to have thought deeply about what COULD happen before one engages in acts that may have an unwanted consequence. I know that isn't always going to happen--but then, that is where the need to be responsible for the choices we make comes into play--and a human being without any say in the matter should not pay the price for an unconsidered choice.

The second objection is: what about rape? Why should the woman have to take responsibility when she did not have a choice?

I can empathize with the burden a raped woman must bear in the extraordinarily rare occasion of rape that leads to pregnancy, however, I think there are two ways she could view an unwanted pregnancy like that--1. She could view such a pregnancy as a continuation of the assault to which the fetus is a co-victim...or 2. She could view the pregnancy as something that gives purpose and meaning to the assault she suffered and look to the birth as something that can bring beauty out of the unspeakable. She would need to be a remarkably strong woman in the case of the 2nd view--but with the proper perspective it could be a triumph over her personal tragedy.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I can empathize with the burden a raped woman must bear in the extraordinarily rare occasion of rape that leads to pregnancy, however, I think there are two ways she could view an unwanted pregnancy like that--1. She could view such a pregnancy as a continuation of the assault to which the fetus is a co-victim...or 2. She could view the pregnancy as something that gives purpose and meaning to the assault she suffered and look to the birth as something that can bring beauty out of the unspeakable. She would need to be a remarkably strong woman in the case of the 2nd view--but with the proper perspective it could be a triumph over her personal tragedy.

All of this magnificent argument about responsibility, and the protection of inalienable rights, and then you say this. You expect the woman to allow herself to be raped continuously for nine months, and then you say that is the moral choice. And at the same time, you imply that that is the weak woman's way, by saying that a strong woman would rejoice that her rapist managed to make his assault last for nine months in her case, and the entire life of the "co-victim." I am, quite honestly, at a loss for words.
You are giving possible psychological supports for a woman suffering through this nine-month rape, and not very good ones, if I may say; you are not explaining how pregnancies caused by rape fit into your argument about responsibility. If these women do not fit your definition of irresponsibility, then your argument against abortion fails. You have justified taking away a woman's freedom under the guise of demanding she make responsible sexual choices; when the choice is taken away from her, this justification for taking away her freedom is also taken away. You argue that the woman must not make choices that would lead to the detriment of others' rights, and yet you would legislate that the consequences of her rape be her burden to bear, against her will? Now whose rights are suffering in favor of another's rights? You would turn a woman into a permanent victim of rape; I cannot think of a more cogent definition of enslavement.
I refuse to accept this argument.

 

[Felicity]

All of this magnificent argument about responsibility, and the protection of inalienable rights, and then you say this. You expect the woman to allow herself to be raped continuously for nine months, and then you say that is the moral choice. And at the same time, you imply that that is the weak woman's way, by saying that a strong woman would rejoice that her rapist managed to make his assault last for nine months in her case, and the entire life of the "co-victim." I am, quite honestly, at a loss for words.
You are giving possible psychological supports for a woman suffering through this nine-month rape, and not very good ones, if I may say; you are not explaining how pregnancies caused by rape fit into your argument about responsibility. If these women do not fit your definition of irresponsibility, then your argument against abortion fails. You have justified taking away a woman's freedom under the guise of demanding she make responsible sexual choices; when the choice is taken away from her, this justification for taking away her freedom is also taken away. You argue that the woman must not make choices that would lead to the detriment of others' rights, and yet you would legislate that the consequences of her rape be her burden to bear, against her will? Now whose rights are suffering in favor of another's rights? You would turn a woman into a permanent victim of rape; I cannot think of a more cogent definition of enslavement.
I refuse to accept this argument.

Consensual sex and rape are not able to be compared in the first part of this scenario. You are looking at this as if it is a single issue and I am saying there are two distinct issues here. The woman's FIRST choice was taken away from her, and therefore she is most certainly not responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. I am not without compassion for a rape victim at all. The SECOND choice of whether to end the pregnancy or to continue it, however, DOES become her responsibility--forced upon her by the rapist's crime and unfortunately she becomes morally responsible for that decision. There are many situations that occur in the course of human life where we become responsible for situations of which we had no part in creating and a pregnancy resulting from rape would be a horrible example of just that.

No matter how you look at it--rape is a life sentence. Once the physical rape has ended the emotional burden does not end. This is so whether a women becomes pregnant due to the rape or not. Just as in any crime that causes physical harm there is a period of recovery--a victim of a drunk driver must convalesce and receive physical and/or emotional therapy as the wounds heal and scars develop. Some scars of violence never go away. A rape victim bears scars as well. These scars are the result of the crime done to her by the rapist. When a pregnancy results from a rape, it is a wound to the woman that she bears as she convalesces just as the emotional trauma is a wound that she bears.

The other issue is the ending of this new life that came into existence as a result of a violent crime. The fact of the conception does not change the reality of what is conceived. We do not put the children of drunk drivers in jail--we do not lethally inject the children of serial killers--how can you consider the execution of a rapist’s child justified due to the mother's trauma? Furthermore--I mentioned earlier--that misplaced mercy is truly no not merciful. A woman traumatized by rape is clearly in a compromised state of mental objectivity--she is influenced by the wrong done to her. I'm sure there is a percentage of women who would like nothing better than to "get rid of" any remnant of the assault she endured and think nothing more about it. Is this the most healthy choice? There is also a percentage that may believe in the days post rape that this in fact is what she wants to do--get over the trauma--but who upon later reflection find it is impossible to ignore the experience and rather must revisit it and integrate what occurred into who she has become. If a woman who falls into this percentage has aborted she may come to view the abortion she had as unwarranted punishment of the human that did nothing to justify his or her destruction. Then the woman has to bear that burden as well.

It is impossible for the woman to NOT suffer as a result of rape--it is impossible that she will not suffer the sentence of having been raped for the rest of her life--what is done cannot be undone--but for a woman to punish the child of a rapist for the action of the rapist is misplaced retribution and to condone it is misplaced mercy. It is the rapist himself that has enslaved the woman by taking away her choice--it is not the child who is conceived by rape that is the master of what the woman suffers.

 

[vergiss]

Felicity, I hope none of your daughters are ever raped - partly because God knows what further harm you'd inflict upon them.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Consensual sex and rape are not able to be compared in the first part of this scenario. You are looking at this as if it is a single issue and I am saying there are two distinct issues here. The woman's FIRST choice was taken away from her, and therefore she is most certainly not responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. I am not without compassion for a rape victim at all. The SECOND choice of whether to end the pregnancy or to continue it, however, DOES become her responsibility--forced upon her by the rapist's crime and unfortunately she becomes morally responsible for that decision. There are many situations that occur in the course of human life where we become responsible for situations of which we had no part in creating and a pregnancy resulting from rape would be a horrible example of just that.

I am indeed looking at this as a single issue, for one very simple reason: it is a single issue. In my eyes, the circumstances by which a woman became pregnant is totally, thoroughly, and unquestionably irrelevant. All that is relevant is the woman's right to control her own body. However, I recognize that not everyone sees this issue as so black and white, and so I am willing to consider the other circumstances.
You have argued that the woman's ONLY reasonable opportunity to choose is before sex; that at that time, she must consider the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is pregnancy, and if she should become pregnant, she must carry the child to term as the natural result of her actions. The only window for her to make a choice is before sex. Now, when the point is made that a rape victim loses that opportunity to choose, you have created a second opportunity to choose? Where was this opportunity when the discussion centered on consensual sex? You mention other situations in which we become responsible through no choice of our own; can you name another where we cannot legally refuse that responsibility? Where we are allowed no choice?

No matter how you look at it--rape is a life sentence. Once the physical rape has ended the emotional burden does not end. This is so whether a women becomes pregnant due to the rape or not. Just as in any crime that causes physical harm there is a period of recovery--a victim of a drunk driver must convalesce and receive physical and/or emotional therapy as the wounds heal and scars develop. Some scars of violence never go away. A rape victim bears scars as well. These scars are the result of the crime done to her by the rapist. When a pregnancy results from a rape, it is a wound to the woman that she bears as she convalesces just as the emotional trauma is a wound that she bears.

You want the wound to remain open for nine months. Surely the emotional scars would be deepened if the woman has to bear a child to term, face the fact that she may hate and love the child, that it would serve as a constant reminder of her violation; don't you think these would worsen an already horrible situation? Yes, there must be a period of recovery, but you are suggesting that the drunk driver's victim should recover while remaining under the car, that the direct results of the actual offense cannot be altered by the victim's choice. So if someone were to stab me, I should leave the knife in my body?
Shouldn't we allow a woman to decide for herself how best she can recover from her wounds?

The other issue is the ending of this new life that came into existence as a result of a violent crime. The fact of the conception does not change the reality of what is conceived. We do not put the children of drunk drivers in jail--we do not lethally inject the children of serial killers--how can you consider the execution of a rapist’s child justified due to the mother's trauma?

We most certainly do these things. Do you think a child does not notice if his father is arrested, tried, and jailed for drunk driving? Do you think the child is unaffected if his father is executed for serial murder? The children must suffer for the acts of their parents. It is horrible, but it is true; if we are to avoid causing harm to the child, should we then not prosecute a murderer who has children? Wouldn't we be harming the innocent children if we make them suffer through a trial? Why should those children suffer for the crimes of their father? Even if the child of rape were carried to term and brought up in a loving home, wouldn't that child have to face the fact that he is the product of a heinous crime? Do you think that will not scar the child? I realize that you see the child's existence as paramount, but we do not agree on that point. And madame, you forget who you are talking to: I don't even need the justification of rape to agree that the mother should have the right to execute an unwanted child; I believe it an unfortunate consequence of her right to live free and control her own body.

Furthermore--I mentioned earlier--that misplaced mercy is truly no not merciful. A woman traumatized by rape is clearly in a compromised state of mental objectivity--she is influenced by the wrong done to her. I'm sure there is a percentage of women who would like nothing better than to "get rid of" any remnant of the assault she endured and think nothing more about it. Is this the most healthy choice? There is also a percentage that may believe in the days post rape that this in fact is what she wants to do--get over the trauma--but who upon later reflection find it is impossible to ignore the experience and rather must revisit it and integrate what occurred into who she has become. If a woman who falls into this percentage has aborted she may come to view the abortion she had as unwarranted punishment of the human that did nothing to justify his or her destruction. Then the woman has to bear that burden as well.

You are not a judge of a rape victim's state of mind, no more than I am. I have never suggested that a woman who suffered rape must abort the child, nor even that she should; the choice is not mine, and I would never presume to make the choice for the woman. How the woman feels about the rape, how she views the rape, is not subject to rational debate, as there are no proofs, no guidelines, no generalizations that can be made other than pure speculation. A woman's mindset is her own; I would argue that she should be allowed to make her own choice, based on her own thoughts and feelings, rather than what you think her thoughts and feelings should be. You have left the realm of provable argument here.

It is impossible for the woman to NOT suffer as a result of rape--it is impossible that she will not suffer the sentence of having been raped for the rest of her life--what is done cannot be undone--but for a woman to punish the child of a rapist for the action of the rapist is misplaced retribution and to condone it is misplaced mercy. It is the rapist himself that has enslaved the woman by taking away her choice--it is not the child who is conceived by rape that is the master of what the woman suffers.

It is the rapist himself who has mandated the suffering of his child, whether that child is aborted or born, adopted or reared by its mother. The responsibility is his, and not hers. She did not make the choice to create the child, and by your own argument, that choice is the only one that matters. So, since the rapist made the decision to have sex, would you argue that the rapist should be allowed to decide what should happen to his child?


I have always been willing to compromise on this issue; I have said several times that if technology existed that allowed the child to live outside of its mother's womb, I would agree to a ban on abortion. I would still personally feel that a woman should be allowed to make her own choice, but I would be willing to compromise. If a child could survive in the third trimester with today's techology, and could be removed without causing the mother undue harm, then the child should not be aborted; this also is a compromise on my part. Are you willing to compromise as well, and allow for abortions in the case of rape? You have made the point that this is a very rare occurrence (though I have seen no numbers or citations to verify that assertion); surely, if there are so few, you would be willing to compromise?

 

[Felicity]

Felicity, I hope none of your daughters are ever raped - partly because God knows what further harm you'd inflict upon them.

Do you think such comments make you appears reasonable, rational, or inelligent? Or is it that you just like to take an opportunity to be petty, vindictive, and rude whenever the opportunity presents itself as spoiled children do? I wish no harm on any person and I would indeed feel the same if my grandchild was conceived by rape. I would help my daughter be strong and help her rise above any violence done to her.

 

[vergiss]

I wish no harm on any person and I would indeed feel the same if my grandchild was conceived by rape. I would help my daughter be strong and help her rise above any violence done to her.

I should hope so. But what if she wanted an abortion?

 

[Felicity]

I should hope so. But what if she wanted an abortion?

As you might imagine--my opinion on abortion is not something I keep close to the vest. Everyone who knows me knows that I think elective abortion is an immoral choice and unjustifyable.

As for my daughter--I would not participate in the abortion in any way, but I would love her and help her convelesce after the trauma. I think that women who have made the WRONG choice deserve tender care and mercy, understanding and support. They do NOT need misguided, unconditional acceptence and validation--they need real mercy and genuine love.

 

[vergiss]

As you might imagine--my opinion on abortion is not something I keep close to the vest. Everyone who knows me knows that I think elective abortion is an immoral choice and unjustifyable.

As for my daughter--I would not participate in the abortion in any way, but I would love her and help her convelesce after the trauma. I think that women who have made the WRONG choice deserve tender care and mercy, understanding and support. They do NOT need misguided, unconditional acceptence and validation--they need real mercy and genuine love.

Genuine love? So you wouldn't make her feel bad about her decision, or attempt to guilt her? You wouldn't turn your back on her? What if, God forbid, she were still only a child when it happened?

 

[Saboteur]

“Sure men do... I had a health class and several biology classes, including Human Biology in High School. Thanks to it being allowed to be taught in school at this point. I find it hard to believe as a college graduate you didn't have any teaching of human development. Didn't you even have an 8th grade science class? Oh yeah and I went to school with girls.”

You might be in the minority because most men do not.

I did not know that in the first 4 weeks the heart starts to beat. I graduated from college in 1978.
Have you ever worked a pro-life booth? 8 out of 10 in my estimate do NOT KNOW FETAL DEVELOPMENT. Even a large majority of pregnant woman do not know.

Not much is covered in an 8th grade biology class on fetal development.

Where I grew up there was a lot of coverage in the interest of human developement. I don't know why it was so early but in 8th grade I had a class called 'Health' and we covered everything from child berth to STDs.

“Well they do now.”

About Planned Parenthood. Wrong again. What they do is lie.

They did not lie back then but they do now. PP published a pamphlet which stated: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Notice Steen, they called this nonentity you say is nothing, A BABY. Today they operate the nation’s largest mass assembly line abortion clinics. In fact the largest in the world.

They admitted what they really do. Kill. They know it, we know it. Faye Wattleton who use to be PPs former director said and I quote, “It’s not a frog or a ferret that’s being killed. “IT’S A BABY. I am full aware of that. I am fully aware of that.”


Now if that is not an admission to guilt I don’t know what is? This type of information PP today keeps from the public and they do not counsel woman and teach them about fetal development.

So which is the lie? The killing of a baby or the killing of a baby?

I said, “I have never gotten into a confrontation with anyone over this issue. Never.”
Why do you find this so hard to believe?

UMMMM I'd call this debate a confrontation. Especially when we both keep trying to drill each other with our beliefs.

You said, “Again, we are Pro-Choice”

You are pro-abortion. If you really cared and loved someone you would tell them the truth. That is the difference between you and me.

I'd like you to read my post here;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6700

Given what I have told you about my education and my involvment with abortion. I think this my be something that needs to be clarified again. I am Pro-Choice. My girlfreinds and I knew what we were doing.

I seek to provide information that will aid in the woman’s health and happiness. To educate her not force her to be able to make AN INFORMED DECISION.

Good, I love that you do that. But you shouldn't hate them if they still choose abortion.

You people who say you are pro-life are so concerned over being tolerant and accepting that it blinds you to what you are really endorsing. If you’re truly tolerant then anything goes. What is easier than confronting people when they engage in negative behavior? Support them in whatever decision they make?
Boy that’s really caring.

Well I'm not for an "everyman for himself" type of anarchy. There does need to be structure and law. And I know we see differently on this.... But most of the crime that needs to be enforced has a victim. And it is my belief that an unborn child that is without a mind that is aware of itself being alive is not a victim.

I can’t remember who said this but it’s true. “The last virtue of a decadent society is tolerance.” Your brand of tolerance says ANYTHING GOES. You put the defenseless and the vulnerable in jeopardy. And when the intolerable is tolerated like abortion. No one is safe.

Well that's not how I see it. And I think your quote means that society's tolerance of decadence, e.g. Paris Hilton celebrating her birthday with six parties in six countries with thousands of people attending while the world starves, leads to all other virtues being forgotten.

“Do you know what the red stripes on the American flag stand for?”

Well for one thing I do not think it stands for murder. And that is what our laws in America allow today. The murder and slaughter of unborn children in the womb. Ironically I think it stands for blood. The blood of those who bravely stood for freedom, and the blood of the innocent child in the womb.

They do stand for the blood that was shed for our freedom. It is true.

You said, “I notice that you didn't answer some of my other questions. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the one I was most interested in. So I ask again;

Whey should you be blessed with children and the rest of us shouldn't?”
I’ll tell you why. I happen to think that life is sacred, to be honored and respected. Pro-choice side doesn’t not hold this belief. I think God wants us to choose life so that we and our decedents will live. Pro-choice side doesn’t seem to grasp this.

Well that's a pretty generalized attitude toward the Pro-Choice side. I don't think that if we were as uneducated and careless as you say none of us would be continuing this rapor.

I believe we have become a sick and dying world and I believe that if we don’t exercise our First Amendment rights, not only are we going to lose them, but evil will continue to triumph. Pro-choice side doesn’t see it this way. I believe we are to rescue those being led to slaughter………..pro-choice side would drive them to the abortion facility to get an abortion. This side so tolerant would say, “I am not for this but you do it anyway.” That makes a lot of sense and takes no guts at all. It’s a pathetic and weak position to take.

Maybe it is a weak position. Or maybe it is as powerful as water. Water always takes the course of least resistance yet it is a very potent element with the power to change the earth. Likewise one who struggles against the water is likley to drown while one who is calm and understands the water has a better chance to survive.

I do not know if I agree that evil and good are at some kind of war. I think the two are equal and as I've said, one does not exist without the other. You can't feel good without having felt bad at one time.

I think this worldview affects all areas of life. I believe those who value all aspects of life should be blessed with children.

But at one time you did not are you not condemned then to be childless?

No one who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for what is right and wrong for children, doesn’t deserve to have children.

And those that sacrifice liberty and freedom for security deserve neither.

There are many aspects of society who have child predators…….they do not deserve to have them either. Our courts should be stronger. If a child is being abused and hurt they should be taken permanently from whoever is doing this.

My sister used to be a social worker. It was a very depressing time for her. Most of the children she 'saved' were back in their abusive environment within 2 weeks thanks to some legal loop hole.

But we cannot make a law forbiding someone to have a child in the same way that we cannot make a law that forces someone to have a child.

“You are right though. I am a little jaded, but it didn't come from my part in the decisions my ex-girlfriends made about our potential children. It happened a long time before then and I am not about to describe why here.”

I am not going to throw stones at you. You know what you did or did not do. We all basically know what are actions cause……….If your girlfriends were pregnant, then how do you use the word potential? A life was already created.

True, I guess because they wouldn't have been children until they were born. I know that a fetus and a baby are the same thing but I think that while they are unborn and not developed enough to even breath on their own or live without amniotic fluid they aren't much more than living tissue with the potential to develope into more than that, i.e. a child.

People can change positions. I researched and read and did investigating. I work in the field and I hear the medical community, lobbyists, people from all walks of life talk about this issue. They are not all Christians; they are people from all faiths. Children are even involved in many areas. The one thing they have in common…………..they all value life and they are not afraid to say it. They stand for the life of the unborn, the handicapped, and the elderly. They work in this field to make a difference and to help those who are too weak to help themselves.

Great. That really is good. It's not my time right now though.

I am a Christian and that forms my worldview. I believe God thinks abortion is murder.

I don't because then all of our world leaders are mass murderers second only to nature.

But why do you people have such a hard time believing that people of all walks are in this fight to end abortion.

Then attack the source, which is poverty.

Why do you say it is only Christians……..who stand against it? That tells me one thing, that you have no clue about both sides of this issue. You do not even know your enemy.

I don't recall saying that but I guess a good amount of christians and pretty much anyone with strong religious beliefs do. And perhaps it should be that way. My enemy are those who would rather see the future as a totalitarian society held in place by the wealthy who govern the poor and use them as slaves. I think this is where the U.S. is headed right now.

 

[Felicity]

I am indeed looking at this as a single issue, for one very simple reason: it is a single issue. In my eyes, the circumstances by which a woman became pregnant is totally, thoroughly, and unquestionably irrelevant. All that is relevant is the woman's right to control her own body.

Even so the result is the same--a human is deprived of his or her life in an abortion and that human's inalienable right to life--the right that must be protected if any other right is to be relevant at all--is taken from him or her at the sole discretion of a single other human being. That is the "slavery" that occurs in pregnancy--a ZEF (Zygote, Embryo, Fetus) is a slave to the mother's actions.

However, I recognize that not everyone sees this issue as so black and white, and so I am willing to consider the other circumstances.
You have argued that the woman's ONLY reasonable opportunity to choose is before sex; that at that time, she must consider the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is pregnancy, and if she should become pregnant, she must carry the child to term as the natural result of her actions. The only window for her to make a choice is before sex.

The only opportunity to make the choice to avoid the consequence of pregnancy is BEFORE she chooses to have sex. In rape, that choice is forcibly taken from her. I don't see a distinction except that you misunderstand what "choices" are being made. There are two choices in every pregnancy--ONE that leads to the pregnancy, and ONE that either continues or terminates the pregnancy. When one chooses to have sex--one does not "choose" to become pregnant. That is something the "pro-choice" side likes to point out and I agree. If one could "choose" to become pregnant or not, then there would be no such thing as infertility issues or unintended pregnancies. One "chooses" to engage in activity that COULD lead to pregnancy--or it might not. The rational, fore thinking person considers that possibility and makes a risk analysis. If they are willing to accept the risk, they are "choosing" to accept the possible unintended consequences. If a person is raped--the stripping of choice is a major reason it is considered a crime. Sex--in and of itself is no crime. It is the circumstances of the sex that make it a loving act or a violent act or varying degrees thereof. Rape it the forcible stripping of "choice."

Now, when the point is made that a rape victim loses that opportunity to choose, you have created a second opportunity to choose?

I have not "created" a second choice--there has always been a second choice. Some women who fail to recognize that pregnancy "could" happen--believing they somehow are exempt--do not automatically abort--they make another choice--to carry the pregnancy to term or not. Simply because the first choice was taken away from a rape victim does not somehow make the second choice any less a "choice."

Where was this opportunity when the discussion centered on consensual sex?

In post 137, when it became clear that you were assuming the abortion choice was the only one relevant to the issue, I clarified the two choices involved in pregnancy. We were still discussing "consensual sex" at that point (although you asked the question about rape in that same post).

You mention other situations in which we become responsible through no choice of our own; can you name another where we cannot legally refuse that responsibility? Where we are allowed no choice?

The draft. Taxes. Licensure for anything...the list goes on and on....there are many things legally and many more simply the result of circumstances of life that take away our "choice." Maybe I don't "choose" to be a single parent, but my husband dies. My "choice" in that matter is taken from me. It happens all the time! Every "right" comes with responsibility. To separate responsibility from the right is to claim we are "entitled" so something without any reciprocal duty. That is just not the case anywhere. We have a duty in every instance and whether we live up to that duty or not determines the course of human existence.

You want the wound to remain open for nine months. Surely the emotional scars would be deepened if the woman has to bear a child to term, face the fact that she may hate and love the child, that it would serve as a constant reminder of her violation; don't you think these would worsen an already horrible situation?

The crime done by the rapist does not justify killing a third person uninvolved except through tragic circumstance of conception. An individual's "rights" end where another individual's rights begin--you agreed to that. You have not argued against the ZEF being a person. If my husband raped me, I could not kill our 3 year old child because every time I looked at him I would see the face of my husband who I now see as a perpetrator. I could not kill all people with blue eyes, because they are a constant reminder of the crime I suffered....I understand the "feelings"--but it is not a "justification."

Again--if the woman could find "love" for the child as you suggest above that she may hate and love him--why would she deprive herself of that goodness out of tragedy by allowing hate to triumph? How do you "worsen" such a destructive act by abstaining from further destruction? You don't--the only way to "worsen" the destruction is to contribute to it by willful destruction yourself.

CONT.

 

[Felicity]

Yes, there must be a period of recovery, but you are suggesting that the drunk driver's victim should recover while remaining under the car, that the direct results of the actual offense cannot be altered by the victim's choice.

The child did not rape her. The presence of the child is not the continuation of the rape it is a wound. I worded it poorly when I said it before in this way: "1. She could view such a pregnancy as a continuation of the assault to which the fetus is a co-victim..." I did not mean that the baby was violating her--I meant that the consequences of the assault continued throughout the pregnancy caused by the assault. I apologize for being unclear and confusing on that.

So if someone were to stab me, I should leave the knife in my body?

Sometimes that is the wise choice lest you bleed to death by removing it. Same goes with bullets left in place since removal would cause more trauma. I get your point though...A knife, however, is not a human with inalienable rights himself.

Shouldn't we allow a woman to decide for herself how best she can recover from her wounds?

Shouldn't she know EXACTLY what she's doing? Shouldn't she be in a healthy mental state when she considers the options? And lastly--shouldn't the other human who's very LIFE is hanging in the balance be given consideration and have his inalienable rights respected? I cannot justify taking a life--even for the possible emotional ease of a victim of a horrible crime. It is immoral--and most definitely illogical.

We most certainly do these things. Do you think a child does not notice if his father is arrested, tried, and jailed for drunk driving? Do you think the child is unaffected if his father is executed for serial murder? The children must suffer for the acts of their parents. It is horrible, but it is true; if we are to avoid causing harm to the child, should we then not prosecute a murderer who has children? Wouldn't we be harming the innocent children if we make them suffer through a trial? Why should those children suffer for the crimes of their father? Even if the child of rape were carried to term and brought up in a loving home, wouldn't that child have to face the fact that he is the product of a heinous crime? Do you think that will not scar the child? I realize that you see the child's existence as paramount, but we do not agree on that point.

Yes. I can agree with what you say above. It still does not justify taking the child's life.

And madame,

ewww...don't like that...makes it sound like you're mad at me....whadIdo???

you forget who you are talking to: I don't even need the justification of rape to agree that the mother should have the right to execute an unwanted child; I believe it an unfortunate consequence of her right to live free and control her own body.

And will you answer the obvious question? What about the unwanted child's inalienable right to life? You do not argue the "personhood" of the unborn human. You do not argue that there exists a right to life. You simply state the mother has the right to her body and somehow that trumps the rights of the unborn human. Would you explain your logical reasoning of that point?

You are not a judge of a rape victim's state of mind, no more than I am. I have never suggested that a woman who suffered rape must abort the child, nor even that she should; the choice is not mine, and I would never presume to make the choice for the woman. How the woman feels about the rape, how she views the rape, is not subject to rational debate, as there are no proofs, no guidelines, no generalizations that can be made other than pure speculation. A woman's mindset is her own; I would argue that she should be allowed to make her own choice, based on her own thoughts and feelings, rather than what you think her thoughts and feelings should be. You have left the realm of provable argument here.

I agree that it is difficult to generalize "feelings" and that is why I think the issue should be looked at with compassion, but objectively as possible so that changeable and unreliable feelings are not the basis of a "choice" but rather rational thought.

It is the rapist himself who has mandated the suffering of his child, whether that child is aborted or born, adopted or reared by its mother. The responsibility is his, and not hers.

That is true that the culpability would be shared--but ultimately she would be the one making the final "choice" in an abortion. He would be responsible for the situation of her pregnancy, but she would be responsible along with him for the termination of the pregnancy.

She did not make the choice to create the child, and by your own argument, that choice is the only one that matters.

That's not so as pointed out above.

So, since the rapist made the decision to have sex, would you argue that the rapist should be allowed to decide what should happen to his child?

His violation of other's rights negates any right he may have had.

Are you willing to compromise as well, and allow for abortions in the case of rape? You have made the point that this is a very rare occurrence (though I have seen no numbers or citations to verify that assertion); surely, if there are so few, you would be willing to compromise?

I think it should be pretty clear I can't justify depriving a human being of his rights without compromising the certainty of all our rights. If a basic human right can be taken away from an individual without reasonable justification that is applicable in every situation, there is no meaning in the claim that mankind has any "rights" at all. Besides my not having any authority over inalienable rights--to "compromise" suggests that even "inalienable" rights can be "alienated" from an individual if enough people "compromise" on the issue. It's just contradictory to the very concept of inalienable rights.

I would "prefer" that incremental step toward fewer deaths--but I am afraid that the cost of the compromise would undermine all peoples so-called "inalienable" rights.

 

[Felicity]

Genuine love? So you wouldn't make her feel bad about her decision, or attempt to guilt her? You wouldn't turn your back on her? What if, God forbid, she were still only a child when it happened?

Genuine love--authentic love--does not seek to please for the sake of peace. Genuine love is willing to be honest while still offering care and concern. Making someone "feel bad" or "guilty" is wrong. However, if my daughter felt guilty because it was wrong to abort, I would not deny that her guilt was valid and that it all was okay....Our feelings are meant to tell us something about ourselves and the world. Pain aids us in avoiding harm, likewise--appropriate guilt is an aid to us in that it helps us avoid harm. I would not revel in the pain my daughter felt--I would help her through it. And if she felt no pain, I would wonder at her emotional state, but I would not brow beat pain into her--that would be meaningless and an abuse. Authentic love is unconditional and given freely even if the recipient does not react as you would expect or possibly desire them to. But I would not lie about my point of view if asked--love is honest.


If she were a child and the risk to her physical health was minimal I would seek extreme counselling for her and deal with the circumstances.

Vergiss--you could come up with innumerable horrific circumstances--but the simple basic logic that life is an inalienable right upon which all other human rights depend does not change no matter the repulsive and heinous circumstances of the beginning of that life.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Even so the result is the same--a human is deprived of his or her life in an abortion and that human's inalienable right to life--the right that must be protected if any other right is to be relevant at all--is taken from him or her at the sole discretion of a single other human being. That is the "slavery" that occurs in pregnancy--a ZEF (Zygote, Embryo, Fetus) is a slave to the mother's actions.

Notice how you slip in here that the right to life is the "right that must be protected if any other right is to be relevant at all?" Have you proved that? Because I don't remember agreeing to it. I have agreed that the ZEF is a slave to the mother's choices, but I put a necessary condition on that, which you have not addressed. If the mother gains profit in some way from the child, it is a slave; if she does not, it is a parasite. And if we were to remove the mother's ability to opt out of the pregnancy, we are forcing her to live as the support of the child; that is slavery, by any definition. Slavery is the control of another against their will and without compensation; what would be the compensation given to a woman if she does not want the child?

The only opportunity to make the choice to avoid the consequence of pregnancy is BEFORE she chooses to have sex. In rape, that choice is forcibly taken from her. I don't see a distinction except that you misunderstand what "choices" are being made. There are two choices in every pregnancy--ONE that leads to the pregnancy, and ONE that either continues or terminates the pregnancy. When one chooses to have sex--one does not "choose" to become pregnant. That is something the "pro-choice" side likes to point out and I agree. If one could "choose" to become pregnant or not, then there would be no such thing as infertility issues or unintended pregnancies. One "chooses" to engage in activity that COULD lead to pregnancy--or it might not. The rational, fore thinking person considers that possibility and makes a risk analysis. If they are willing to accept the risk, they are "choosing" to accept the possible unintended consequences. If a person is raped--the stripping of choice is a major reason it is considered a crime. Sex--in and of itself is no crime. It is the circumstances of the sex that make it a loving act or a violent act or varying degrees thereof. Rape it the forcible stripping of "choice."

Yes, it is. And so your proposed law that removes the second opportunity to choose would be . . . ?

I have not "created" a second choice--there has always been a second choice. Some women who fail to recognize that pregnancy "could" happen--believing they somehow are exempt--do not automatically abort--they make another choice--to carry the pregnancy to term or not. Simply because the first choice was taken away from a rape victim does not somehow make the second choice any less a "choice."

In post 137, when it became clear that you were assuming the abortion choice was the only one relevant to the issue, I clarified the two choices involved in pregnancy. We were still discussing "consensual sex" at that point (although you asked the question about rape in that same post).

Are you arguing that the rapist takes away her rights, but you don't? As it stands now, the choice exists; right or wrong, women can choose to terminate a pregnancy. If you would create a law that bans that practice, aren't you taking away a choice? You see that there is a choice there, but your entire argument is based on removing that choice. I was arguing that if you do that, if you succeed in your goals, you will make women into slaves. If you refuse to allow exceptions in cases of rape, you make the women the slaves of the rapists, and that is truly unspeakable.

The draft. Taxes. Licensure for anything...the list goes on and on....there are many things legally and many more simply the result of circumstances of life that take away our "choice." Maybe I don't "choose" to be a single parent, but my husband dies. My "choice" in that matter is taken from me. It happens all the time! Every "right" comes with responsibility. To separate responsibility from the right is to claim we are "entitled" so something without any reciprocal duty. That is just not the case anywhere. We have a duty in every instance and whether we live up to that duty or not determines the course of human existence.

The first two are not choices, and I don't understand the third. We must register for the draft; if we are in fact drafted, there is an opportunity to avoid it through conscientious objector status. We all must pay taxes; there is no choice involved in that. How is a license something that cannot be changed? I could give it up, I could have it revoked, I could throw it in a drawer and forget about it. As for being a single parent, you can give up your children to the state at any time. You are suggesting that once a woman makes a choice, her decision making abilities are then revoked for the next nine months; nine months of her life are determined by her choice to have sex -- or apparently, her choice to be raped. I am asking if there is another choice I could make, that I could not legally change immediately after making it. A contract can be broken, a marriage can be annulled; we are allowed to choose, and then choose again. If a pregnant woman cannot do this, how can we see it as anything but slavery?

The crime done by the rapist does not justify killing a third person uninvolved except through tragic circumstance of conception. An individual's "rights" end where another individual's rights begin--you agreed to that. You have not argued against the ZEF being a person. If my husband raped me, I could not kill our 3 year old child because every time I looked at him I would see the face of my husband who I now see as a perpetrator. I could not kill all people with blue eyes, because they are a constant reminder of the crime I suffered....I understand the "feelings"--but it is not a "justification."

The child's right to live ends where the mother's right to freedom begins. If the child can live without the mother, excellent; she has no right to kill it. But it has no right to control its mother's body. I really don't want to get into the argument about the personhood of the fetus; I thought the post you linked did it very well, and I'll accept it as proven, though I don't agree with it, personally. But that ZEF's right to live does not override the mother's right to control her body. And again, you could give up your child; you can walk away. A mother needs to be able to walk away.

Again--if the woman could find "love" for the child as you suggest above that she may hate and love him--why would she deprive herself of that goodness out of tragedy by allowing hate to triumph? How do you "worsen" such a destructive act by abstaining from further destruction? You don't--the only way to "worsen" the destruction is to contribute to it by willful destruction yourself.

CONT.

You're back to arguing her possible mindset. It isn't up to you. The best case scenario doesn't mean the worst case will never happen; ideally, all women will be able to forget about the rape and be happy afterwards, and not act in a self-destructive way. But you can't tell them not to act that way, and you also have no logical way to show that killing the child is self-destructive to the mother, except you think it is.