Abortion in the case of rape/incest

A'sD, I appreciate that your faith informs your views on the issue, but when you throw God into a discussion on abortion, you automatically give the Rollingwood Horns of the world an invitation to do exactly what you see them do on this thread. They dismiss you out of hand because they don't believe, and thus are able to intentionally muddy the real issue - which is when does life begin - enough to walk away with the status quo intact.

The pro-life position is entirely supportable by the science, logic, and to a large degree legal precedence pre-Roe. Don't give them an out by bringing God into it. Show them the beating heart from a 4 week sonogram and make them tell YOU why it's not worthy of legal protection. Make them tell you when precisely life begins and when they can't, insist we err on the side of life, just like we do with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal proceedings.

With respect to the original question in this thread, the short answer is yes, the rape/incest exception is hypocritical to the pro-life argument, but it is not politically feasible to disallow. The Rollingwood Horns of the world know this - they are merely playing a game of gotcha. Don't let them. Again, going back to science and logic; last time I checked, something like 1.5% of all abortions were done because of rape, and that number is probably even lower today. Grant them the rape/incest exception and save the other 1.475 million babies a year who are being aborted solely as a means of birth control. Yes, it sucks for that 1.5% but that's the political reality we face. You simply will never, ever get abortion laws changed without a rape/incest exception, so take that arrow out of their quiver.
 
I already solved the abortion issue a long time ago, guys. This thread is full of needless animosity.

Of course, I solved it from a liberal/conservative perspective, not a religious one, so maybe not.

Conservative principles mean that the government should never be able to tell me what to do with my body. Or any woman what to do with her body. But if we even suspect that life might begin at conception, then the zygote/embryo/fetus can't just be killed, right? How to weigh the rights of the child against the rights of the mother?

Simple. Allow Caesarian deliveries at any point in pregnancy if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. Hopefully the baby will survive, of course, but it can be considered unreasonable to force a woman to be an incubator for the government. Emotionally it's deplorable to think about it like this, but legally it's not right to force someone to allow another person to take nutrients from their body. Fortunately for our species, the vast majority of women actually enjoy doing this.

Let's say that you and a friend are in an accident. For whatever reason (this is a thought exercise), the accident results in you and your friend being hooked up to a machine that transfers your nutrients and blood to him. It's the only thing keeping him alive. If you disconnect the machine, it's nearly certain that he will die. Should the government be allowed to force you to stay hooked up to the machine? Your friend is unable to communicate his wishes but it is assumed that he wants to stay alive. Furthermore, it's assumed that after a certain amount of time he will recover and be able to come off the machine.

Obviously most of us would be willing to stay hooked up. But should it be illegal to disconnect? I say no.
 
because of some of her political views.... and because she stole furniture from the white house... seriously, who the hell does that?
 
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