This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I didn't realize there was that much debate about the way in which it works. Though I have a hard time taking at face value a scientific article that starts with "We love you."
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
1. Mother and child are equally important. The mother is alive. The child is literally growing inside her. Neither should lose their life over it.
2. Correction: He committed the rape. They made the baby. It was against her will YES but without her egg, there'd be no child. No matter how you look at it, that child is made up of 50% of the mother.
3. Again, it's her baby too; regardless of how the child was conceived. Someone raped the mother; that someone wasn't the baby. It's an innocent life.
1. But why should the mother be forced to carry the fetus if she doesn't believe it's a child? Doesn't her mental health matter at all?
2-3. And that's still her decision on whether or not she decides to abort the fetus; not anyone elses.
Even if she
gives up the child for adoption after the birth
aborts the child, she'll still recall what he did and what he made.
Fixed for you, Adams. If you're going to make comments like the one you made, you're going to have to concede that abortion isn't going to fix things either.
Of course not, but aborting it would hopefully get her onto a road for recovery faster then living with that trauma for another 9 months.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Adams- Your first question doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Asking someone who believes it's a child why a mother should carry if if the mother doesn't believe it is, is like asking the average person why a country should offer people of an ethnic minority human rights if they don't believe they're human. You don't try to pass laws to make other people do what they believe is right, you pass laws based on what you believe is right. If I believe that you, as a human being, have the right to not be shot in the street, then I believe that regardless of whether or not the shooter believes you qualify as a human being. If I believe a child shouldn't be molested at age 8, it doesn't matter if the person touching her thinks she's old enough- his perception is not the basis of whether or not you believe what he's doing hurts her and needs to stop.
And the second point only makes sense if you concede the baby is not a separate person, which is the exact opposite of the pro-life stance. Pro-choice arguments that wouldn't make sense in regards to a 1-year-old child aren't going to hold water with people who believe a fetus is a child. If a mother thought her toddler was too bothersome and wanted to kill it, we wouldn't worry about whether or not she was right in saying it was a burden, whether preventing her from killing it would force us to restrain her use of her body, whether or not she'd be mentally healthier if she killed it or whether being a mother was traumatic and she'd be relieved to just kill the child and get it over with. Because none of that would be more important to us than the fact that she wants to murder a child.
When you ask those questions of someone who is pro-life, it misses the part of their argument completely that their belief hinges on. That it is a human being. If you wouldn't ask someone if something is a good reason to kill a pre-schooler, then it's a useless reason in an abortion debate. If you want to argue the science of what makes a human a human, and the morality of killing based on awareness, then that's one think. If you want to argue whether it's a human yet, that makes sense. But all of the other arguments relating to the stress on the mother don't relate to arguing with someone who believes it is the same as murder, because none of those reasons would be good enough to even remotely justify killing a child.
Again, I can see that people who have been raped took no part in willingly creating that child, and so I can understand their position somewhat. But the vast majority of abortions are because of lack of precaution, and 50% of abortions are done to women who already had one once. I'd like to be able to discuss using abortion as a method of birth control as a separate issue from the much more grey and much less common issue of rape.
Post by
Adamsm
It makes 'sense' in regards to the pro-choice group: If the mother had the abortion a few days or a week after the rape, it hasn't hit the 23rd week where abortion doctors refuse to do the procedure.
I can semi-understand the pro-life choice, but I also don't see putting the fetus welfare ahead of the mother's in cases like rape. Yes, the fetus didn't ask to be conceived, but the mother didn't ask to be raped either. I've always just felt like 'forcing' a rape victim to carry her rapist baby is a type of punishment on the woman; as if the world is telling her what she wants doesn't matter....which after a rape, is not something any woman wants to hear.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- so lets set aside life of mother (which I agree, abortions are appropriate if it's one life or the other) cases. Lets set aside rape, which statistically counts for between .35 and 1% of all abortions, depending on your source. Lets say that I'm not fighting those legally at all, even if I don't agree in the second case.
Lets discuss the other 99-99.65% of cases, in which we're not discussing the life of the mother, and the mother wasn't raped. Lets discuss the vast majority, which occur as a result of lack of birth control and lack of giving a damn whether or not you get pregnant. I think that the rape argument it the number one defense, and in reality it's very rarely what abortion is actually used for. If the majority of abortions occur because people are using it as alternative birth control, lets discuss that aspect instead of the entire argument being about rape cases. Those, in my opinion, are almost completely ignored in this debate and that's where I'd say there is the most cause for legal review.
Post by
Adamsm
Well that still falls under case by case; I know there are women out there who just don't give a damn and will have an abortion, but there are also young women who were well...mislead(oh who am I kidding, they are idiots) and believed what the guy who was trying to get into their pants told them, you know all those lies about ways to not get pregnant that doesn't involve condoms. To me at least, I'm not sure why their lives should be completely messed up due to one(two depending on your point of view) mistake.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well that still falls under case by case; I know there are women out there who just don't give a damn and will have an abortion, but there are also young women who were well...mislead(oh who am I kidding, they are idiots) and believed what the guy who was trying to get into their pants told them, you know all those lies about ways to not get pregnant that doesn't involve condoms. To me at least, I'm not sure why their lives should be completely messed up due to one(two depending on your point of view) mistake.
But, if that same guy leaves them when the child is two, it's not a reason for her to kill the kid for a fresh start. If you believe it is a child (which I do), then the answer to your question of "Why should she have her life messed up," is "Because she doesn't have the right to kill another person to undo her mistakes."
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
To qualify: I think I occupy a kind of middle ground in response to abortion. I think the cut-off point for abortion should not be based on viability of the foetus, but rather when the foetus is capable of feeling pain. It's a Utilitarian argument (one could also make the Utilitarian argument that aborting a child before it can feel pain deprives it of future pleasure, but contraception and abstinence encounter the same problems, which is why I'll focus on commission).
Pro-choice arguments that wouldn't make sense in regards to a 1-year-old child aren't going to hold water with people who believe a fetus is a child. If a mother thought her toddler was too bothersome and wanted to kill it, we wouldn't worry about whether or not she was right in saying it was a burden, whether preventing her from killing it would force us to restrain her use of her body, whether or not she'd be mentally healthier if she killed it or whether being a mother was traumatic and she'd be relieved to just kill the child and get it over with. Because none of that would be more important to us than the fact that she wants to murder a child.
This is essentially my point of contention. I understand (to some degree) both sides of the debate. I do not understand rape concessions from individuals otherwise pro-life. A completely implausible hypothetical: a woman has a regular sexual partner. After a night of heavy drinking, she retires with her boyfriend and they copulate. She discovers she's pregnant a few months later and is delighted. The boyfriend proposes. Her baby has a mixed skin phenotype not that of her boyfriends. She discovers she and her boyfriend were given a date rape drug on that night and she has a rape baby. Should she be permitted to kill it in order to save herself the mental anguish of knowing the product of rape will be present in the world?
I also don't like the hyper-focus on the notion of choice. Yes, I understand rape is heinous crime. However, no-one seeking an abortion chose to get pregnant and each of them would probably regret carrying a baby to full term.
she'll still recall what he did and what he made.
This descends to the level of perceiving a baby as an unfolding homunculi. The environment a child is raised in contributes heavily to their personality. It's not as if the product of a rape is destined to be a rapist itself. We have family friends where one of the children is a product of rape and they're charming. On another forum I attend, a friend of one of the posters survived a "corrective rape" and went to a Planned Parenthood clinic. After consulting with them, she decided to keep the child and is now raising it with her female partner.
Some might commit suicide
Or the person may get an abortion, go on to have another child with a caring partner who then goes on to become a vocal pro-life activist, whom upon learning of his mother's earlier abortion commits suicide.
Edit:
Mine happens to be that to kill a fetus is to kill a living breathing human being. To me, the moment they are conceived they are a person. Regardless of the stage of development; even when they are a microscopic egg.
Minor pedantic point: they're not breathing in the womb. A fertilised ova is called a zygote, by the way.
Post by
Ksero
Why are you pro-life people so arrogant, you seem to know what's best for people from your outside unrelated perspective. My view it's the mother's choice, THAT'S IT, to think you know better than they do is ridiculous. I am not "pro child murder" I am pro-choice, no one has the right to say whether or not the mother should get an abortion other than herself.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Gamer- I don't think it's as much an "It's perfectly fine," response to the rape scenario, as an acknowledgement that it wasn't something she could have prevented, or chose to risk. I still don't think it's right, but it's the cornerstone of the pro-choice argument. If we separate the concepts of abortion used as birth control and abortion for a rape victim, there isn't a "you'd force a rape victim to relive their rape," argument. It's strictly about people who made the choice to engage in risky behavior, and now want someone else to pay the ultimate cost so they don't have to. And to make abortion illegal in non-rape or life-of-mother cases would eliminate 99% of abortions. That, in my mind, is much more achievable than banning it outright, would save 99% of the children we're trying to save, and not hit the argument that people who support an unborn baby's right to life must somehow support the rape and subjugation of women.
@Ksero- I tend to believe it's better for children to not be killed than it is for them to be killed. Call me crazy, but somewhere along the line I decided that life was a better option for children than death.
And the flip side is why are Pro-choice people so arrogant that they seem unable to even imagine that another person wouldn't want a child killed? i don't think a mother can kill her toddler, or her infant- I don't think that's her choice to make, because they are a person with a right to life. If I don't believe that an unborn child is all that much different than a newborn, then it's the same logic for me. If I was arguing that a government shouldn't kill toddlers of impoverished people to keep the food shortage down, no one would tell me to mind my own business. In my mind, it's the same thing. It's not that I think I know what's best for the mother- it's that whether or not killing a child is good for someone else, I won't support it.
Post by
Adamsm
This descends to the level of perceiving a baby as an unfolding homunculi. The environment a child is raised in contributes heavily to their personality. It's not as if the product of a rape is destined to be a rapist itself. We have family friends where one of the children is a product of rape and they're charming. On another forum I attend, a friend of one of the posters survived a "corrective rape" and went to a Planned Parenthood clinic. After consulting with them, she decided to keep the child and is now raising it with her female partner.I agree there are those who have a good happy lives out of the tragedy...and then you have the families lives where it's anything but: Mother has the rapist baby and the rest of the family treats the child like crap, talks about bad blood and all of the rest and the kid grows up with a hell of a life which may or may not influence him for the rest of his life.
After all, I've never prescribed to that ridiculous notion that rape/murder/bigotry is hard wired inside of us and if that's what our parents were, we are going to end up the same. I just think in cases like this, it is about what the mother's ultimate choice is, so to me, it's always going to be about that rather then some possible ideal that the fetus is a child from the moment it's conceived.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Why are you pro-life people so arrogant, you seem to know what's best for people from your outside unrelated perspective. My view it's the mother's choice, THAT'S IT, to think you know better than they do is ridiculous. I am not "pro child murder" I am pro-choice, no one has the right to say whether or not the mother should get an abortion other than herself.
Yes, we're arrogant because we don't want to kill a baby, a fetus, a zygote or whatever you choose to call it.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
Why are you pro-life people so arrogant, you seem to know what's best for people from your outside unrelated perspective. My view it's the mother's choice, THAT'S IT, to think you know better than they do is ridiculous. I am not "pro child murder" I am pro-choice, no one has the right to say whether or not the mother should get an abortion other than herself.
Yes, we're arrogant because we don't want to kill a baby, a fetus, a zygote or whatever the hell you need to call it to make you feel better.
The point is it's not your decision to make.
EDIT: to elaborate, it's the same decision that the next of kin makes when pulling the feeding tube on a terminally ill 60 year old in a vegetative state, it's not up to you or me, it's up to the next of kin.
@elhonna
It's still not your choice to make
Post by
Adamsm
And there's the wall that always appears from topics like this: Stalemate on both sides.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Ksero- Do you believe that it's not our right as a society to punish those who kill children who have already been born? Like if a parent murdered a toddler, is that their choice as a parent to make and the rest of society has no say?
Post by
Ksero
@Ksero- Do you believe that it's not our right as a society to punish those who kill children who have already been born? Like if a parent murdered a toddler, is that their choice as a parent to make and the rest of society has no say?
A fetus
isn't
a toddler, you can think differently but it's a fact. Society can think whatever it wants, but there is a reason that abortion is legal and killing a toddler isn't.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.