Abortion in the case of rape/incest

I've read the book and I'd wager I understand it much better than you do.

Nothing worse than the converted Christian carrying his/her guilt around and simultaneously using it as some twisted badge of 'higher understanding.'

'What does it mean' is a simple question.

If you are suggesting that being raped creates some sort of temporary vacuum where one is permitted to act beyond the moral code of your God, then I truly question your understanding of the book.
 
I think A'D really answered the original question. He is one of those who oppose abortion on morality and not because he unquestionably believes in the sanctity of life. I think a lot of anti-abortionists are like this. I respect those who truly believe that life begins at conception and want to genuinely protect it. I don't agree with their understanding of life, but I can respect their stand.It is people like A'D, I have a problem with.
 
Why do we have a different penalty for manslaughter than we do for first-degree murder? It's because intent always matters under the law. I am personally pro-choice, but given the obvious fact that the great majority of people will always take intent into account when passing judgment I can hardly be surprised when many millions see a qualitative difference between abortion used as birth control and abortion meant to offer mercy to a rape victim who resisted her attacker. While I would personally make it available in both cases I can certainly see why others might try to draw a bright moral line between the two.
 
Life begins at fertilization. Arguing that is denying biology. Bacteria are alive, fish are alive, and many other creatures are alive, none of which resembles adult humans in the slightest. Following fertilization, a human becomes gradually more recognizable as such and eventually dies. It is the extraordinarily rare human that could live without any help from / interaction with other humans. We make laws, among other reasons, to prevent one or more humans from bringing about the death of another human earlier than it would otherwise have come. Our laws have exceptions, some of which almost all agree are consistent with protecting lives, e.g., self-defense.

Some people think or believe life is sacred and/or a right. For them, the consistent view should be fertilization to natural death-- it is all life. Others rely on a construct known as a "person" which is entitled to protections. There is no consensus on how to become a person or when one ceases to be one. Each individual is free to define "person" how he/she likes and thus absolve his/her conscience of how "nonpersons" are treated. This has been problematic in obvious ways (e.g., Nazi Germany) and nonobvious ones-- it is a matter of degree and personal opinion when one denies that an absolute truth governs.
 
there is brain matter on my computer screen because my head just ******* exploded.

certianly interesting to see how some people see things. absolutely amazing. i'm never looking at this thread again.
 
Life begins when life begins. The only difference between us and a "fetus" is time. Every "fetus" becomes a human....every single time.

hookem.gif
 
IMO the OP leaves out a huge part of the issue, which is the raped pregnant woman's rights. In the case of pregnancy due to rape, whose rights do we choose to uphold? Do you uphold the unborn fetus' right to life, or do you uphold the raped woman's right to privacy in choosing whether or not she wants to endure the physical and emotional burden of investing ~10 months of her life to carrying and delivering a baby that was forced upon her.

I don't know the answer to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top