Gov. Jeb Bush Ignites National Abortion Controversy



  • See…
    http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses

    A severely handicapped woman was raped while in the government’s care.

    The fetus(Latin meaning “little one”)is over 22 weeks old/developed. It is viable. Why not appoint a guardian for 1)the mother and 2)the fetus/child?



  • Who is the rapist, and why isn’t that crime not topic of a discussion?
    Are women only tools to breed, or as human as any man?
    It looks like there is much more sympathy with US POWs (who as soldiers must be aware that such a thing can happen during wars) than with raped women (who have not chosen to be “the weaker” and more often abused gender).

    To this special case:
    Where was the guardian when the rape happened? Who’s rights are supreme, the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother? What if those interest contradict each other, will the guardians then roll a dice to see who decides?
    The fetus is “viable”… viable is a rubber-term: some geniuses are not able to survive without help. Plants are viable… this child most probably will not survive a week unless it is taken away from its mother, is that viable or unnatural?
    Should a woman be forced to give birth to a child that she probably never wanted, that she couldn’t care for herself, that was conceived by non consenting intercourse, that she might not even recognize as her child?

    a tough question, but from what i have read/heard about the US and abortion, this should be an easy decision against abortion, as the woman is helpless and not able to complain against anything that she is forced to do.



  • @F_alk:

    Who is the rapist, and why isn’t that crime not topic of a discussion?
    Are women only tools to breed, or as human as any man?
    It looks like there is much more sympathy with US POWs (who as soldiers must be aware that such a thing can happen during wars) than with raped women (who have not chosen to be “the weaker” and more often abused gender).

    To this special case:
    Where was the guardian when the rape happened? Who’s rights are supreme, the rights of the fetus or the rights of the mother? What if those interest contradict each other, will the guardians then roll a dice to see who decides?
    The fetus is “viable”… viable is a rubber-term: some geniuses are not able to survive without help. Plants are viable… this child most probably will not survive a week unless it is taken away from its mother, is that viable or unnatural?
    Should a woman be forced to give birth to a child that she probably never wanted, that she couldn’t care for herself, that was conceived by non consenting intercourse, that she might not even recognize as her child?

    a tough question, but from what i have read/heard about the US and abortion, this should be an easy decision against abortion, as the woman is helpless and not able to complain against anything that she is forced to do.

    of course you have omitted the weakest and possibly most victimized in all of this - the unborn child.
    I guess if we can discount these people, then the woman can do whatever she wants. At the same time, if her 2 year old is giving her a headache by crying all the time, why should she not be allowed to kill it too?


  • 2019 Moderator

    The only reason women should be allowed to have an abortion is if having the baby will threaten their life. Then they should have the choice.

    My boss causes me pain and inconveniences me all the time, maybe I should perform a post birth abortion on him. :roll:



  • @dezrtfish:

    The only reason women should be allowed to have an abortion is if having the baby will threaten their life. Then they should have the choice.

    The problem with this is that a woman can find a doctor to say whatever the woman wants. Thus, “The fetus threatens the woman’s life.” responds the doctor.

    I find it interesting that, in most scenarios presented to likely voters, the only fact that leans the majority toward abortion is “the woman’s life is at risk.”

    If I remember my facts correctly “the woman’s life is at risk” most often in the case of a tubal pregnancy.



  • I agree with DzrtFish.



  • @dezrtfish:

    The only reason women should be allowed to have an abortion is if having the baby will threaten their life. Then they should have the choice.

    So…. someone like a daughter being raped and impregnated by her father would have to carry out that child?

    @El:

    The problem with this is that a woman can find a doctor to say whatever the woman wants.
    ….If I remember my facts correctly “the woman’s life is at risk” most often in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

    The problem is that the laws are made by men. Sentence for rape: a few years, Sentence for being raped: probably lifelong……
    Tubal pregnancies, well you can ask CC for that. AFAIK about half end naturally by the body aborting it.
    And i am not aware of a single successful tubal prgenancy. Alone from imagining i would say that every tubal pregnancy is a lethal danger. Just assume you have something to a few kg growing in you where it shouldn’t.

    @cystic:

    of course you have omitted the weakest and possibly most victimized in all of this - the unborn child.
    I guess if we can discount these people, then the woman can do whatever she wants. At the same time, if her 2 year old is giving her a headache by crying all the time, why should she not be allowed to kill it too?

    CC, please not that i never talked of born childs or killing them because they are “annoying”. That is a most unfair comparison you should not need to use.

    I am not favoring the “do whatever she wants”. But i do have some questions:
    (1) If i force a woman to become pregnant, why are you not allowing her (later, after she got rid of my influence) to end the pregnancy?
    (2) Why is there this small amount of time (about three hours after birth) that allows a woman to repudiate her child, before the mother-child attachment kicks in? This is a natural thing, from ancient times, for the cases that a new baby would endanger the rest of the clan (maybe there is not enough food for all, etc.). Why does nature allow that?
    (3) something more metaphysical: When does life start? With the merging of two cells? Biologically yes, any one cell is alive. Even an unfertilized egg is “living” then. Should women be punished for mass murder then?
    (4) something more religious: when does the soul get into the body? Do chimpanzees have a soul? If not, how comes that kids start to recognize themselves as themselves in the mirror by the age of something like 4 years. Before that they see “just another kid”, pretty much like most mammals. Higher apes on the other hand (like chimps) later notice that it is themselves in the mirror. Are these entities that have a conciousness of themselves not allowed to have a soul? If not, why? If yes, why are we allowed to kill them freely.

    In general, i ask:
    A bunch of cells, without any sensory cells or even other nerves has more rights and can force a -possibly abused- human being of what it has to do?
    No!

    In this case: CC, of course the woman won’t “do what she wants”. She is severely handicapped, autistic and what else what i have forgotten. And she has been raped, while being under the supervision (and protection?) of the state AFAIR. So societey says “well, sorry for that shit that happened, but you must keep that child? In turn, we promise we will look out that you never get raped again, fair deal??” No again!



  • Some more things:

    (1) If someone murders a pregnant woman, is he charged for double murder? If a soldier in war kills civilians, including pregnant women, what then? Is he charged for murdering the unborn childs (as they can in no means be a danger to him?) Next, if you kill a pregnant woman that assaults/attacks you and endangers your life, and you kill her in self-defense, are you then the murderer of the unborn child, as the child was no danger to you? Is there is difference in the judgement depending on wether you know or not know that the woman is pregnant?
    Assume a woman who doesn’t know she is pregnant does something that starts a natural abortion (some sports, drug use, whatever)…… what is your judgement? Involuntary manslaughter? What is the judgement for any natural abortion?
    Where do you draw the line?

    (2) I would assume we agree on the following:
    If a crime is committed, efforts should be untertaken for the victim, so that the crime is “undone” mentally, economically and physically.
    Why is rape an exception to this?


  • 2019 Moderator

    (1) If someone murders a pregnant woman, is he charged for double murder?

    I am not a legal expert but I belive this can and has happened.

    Your other examples are the reason we have a jury trial system. 🙂



  • @F_alk:

    @dezrtfish:

    The only reason women should be allowed to have an abortion is if having the baby will threaten their life. Then they should have the choice.

    So…. someone like a daughter being raped and impregnated by her father would have to carry out that child?

    The fact is that the father by impregnating his daughter has victimized two people - his daughter and her child. Your solution would be to compound the crime by killing the child? As though this would “undo” the crime? From a rational-genetics standpoint, this doesn’t look to bad as there are some nasty genetic consequences possible (not likely tho’).

    @El:

    The problem with this is that a woman can find a doctor to say whatever the woman wants.
    ….If I remember my facts correctly “the woman’s life is at risk” most often in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

    The problem is that the laws are made by men. Sentence for rape: a few years, Sentence for being raped: probably lifelong…… .

    true. And the sentance for being conceived in this instance - death? Or life in a family that cares for the child vis a vis adoption? For the woman this is 9 months, however i do not think that by killing the child you will end or even mitigate her suffering. It may even be possible that you will compound it further as there are few women who kill their unborn children who do not suffer in some way.

    Tubal pregnancies, well you can ask CC for that. AFAIK about half end naturally by the body aborting it.
    And i am not aware of a single successful tubal prgenancy. Alone from imagining i would say that every tubal pregnancy is a lethal danger. Just assume you have something to a few kg growing in you where it shouldn’t…

    I can reply to this in more detail later if you like. Needless to say that you are correct. Few tubal pregnancies should be allowed to continue gestation for the simple facts that: A) most of them are not even viable pregnancies, and B) there is an extremely high maternal mortality rate associated with tubal pregnancies which is consequently lethal to the fetus as well.

    @cystic:

    of course you have omitted the weakest and possibly most victimized in all of this - the unborn child.
    I guess if we can discount these people, then the woman can do whatever she wants. At the same time, if her 2 year old is giving her a headache by crying all the time, why should she not be allowed to kill it too?

    CC, please not that i never talked of born childs or killing them because they are “annoying”. That is a most unfair comparison you should not need to use…

    so what is your threshold for the degree of inconvenience of a child and its consequences?
    inconvenient before birth therefore it deserves to die?

    I am not favoring the “do whatever she wants”. But i do have some questions:
    (1) If i force a woman to become pregnant, why are you not allowing her (later, after she got rid of my influence) to end the pregnancy?
    (2) Why is there this small amount of time (about three hours after birth) that allows a woman to repudiate her child, before the mother-child attachment kicks in? This is a natural thing, from ancient times, for the cases that a new baby would endanger the rest of the clan (maybe there is not enough food for all, etc.). Why does nature allow that?
    (3) something more metaphysical: When does life start? With the merging of two cells? Biologically yes, any one cell is alive. Even an unfertilized egg is “living” then. Should women be punished for mass murder then?
    (4) something more religious: when does the soul get into the body? Do chimpanzees have a soul? If not, how comes that kids start to recognize themselves as themselves in the mirror by the age of something like 4 years. Before that they see “just another kid”, pretty much like most mammals. Higher apes on the other hand (like chimps) later notice that it is themselves in the mirror. Are these entities that have a conciousness of themselves not allowed to have a soul? If not, why? If yes, why are we allowed to kill them freely.

    1. as discussed earlier - you committed 2 crimes. Why should we commit a 3rd? And why is it a given that this will solve all of her problems? She may bear this burden 9 months, but the facts that she was raped, and that she killed her child will be with her (and the child) forever
    2. don’t even go there. Unless all of a sudden civilization is meaningless, for it is these instinctual urges and the ability to disregard another’s being for our own selfish reasons that got the woman pregnant in the first place
    3. I wasn’t going to get metaphysical, however i think that given the number of times i wash myself daily, the number of cells i kill with nearly any activity then we might all be accused of mass murder in this regard. Furthermore there is something different that happens with conception that does not happen anywhere else in human physiology, so i think that it is POSSIBLE that life may begin here. As it may never be proven, then why take that chance?
      4)good question? There is, of course, a biblical response to this, however despite my flagrant Christianity, i am not going down this road on this topic as it might keep my views from being taken seriously by atheists on the board.

    In general, i ask:
    A bunch of cells, without any sensory cells or even other nerves has more rights and can force a -possibly abused- human being of what it has to do?
    No!

    well, this is a tricky question. do they have rights? To live? I hope so. To impose their will on another being? to one degree i hope as well.

    In this case: CC, of course the woman won’t “do what she wants”. She is severely handicapped, autistic and what else what i have forgotten. And she has been raped, while being under the supervision (and protection?) of the state AFAIR. So societey says “well, sorry for that sh*t that happened, but you must keep that child? In turn, we promise we will look out that you never get raped again, fair deal??” No again!

    again, this all goes to “why must we kill the child for justice”?



  • So…. someone like a daughter being raped and impregnated by her father would have to carry out that child?

    This is such a non-issue F_alk. What percentage of women seeking abortions have been raped and impregnated by the fathers? Seriously, I would like a figure on this. Why don’t you deal with the facts as they are, and that is: most women get them becuase they simply don’t want the baby.

    The problem is that the laws are made by men.

    This is seriously your argument? Does this mean no law in this country is legitimate simply because it’s “made by a man.” Are you aware that they are female supreme court justices also?

    A bunch of cells, without any sensory cells or even other nerves has more rights and can force a -possibly abused- human being of what it has to do?

    You can always tell the pro-abortion folks have lost the argument when they start spewing this crap out. 😉



  • I dunno if i’m for or against abortion.

    Like my gf…awhile ago she passed out at a party, and when she woke up she had that feeling, and she found out someone had raped her in her sleep 😮 (this girl wasnt my gf when this happened) she thought she was pregnant, got tested not long ago, but she ISNT pregnant (thank god, lol) I didn’t really think about abortion though, lol I was thinking more along the lines of smashing this guy’s skull in with a metal bat (after breaking his fingers and cutting up his face :evil: ) it pisses me off so much just thinkin about it! even if i didnt know the girl, i’d wanna kill the guy. lol if any of you has ever done this to a girl, please come down so i can vent my frustrations and beat you to death(i’ll buy u ice cream after)



  • but yes, lol I suppose i’m indifferent to abortion. I dont feel strongly about it either way



  • Know how you feel.
    Had a gf(she was 15 when we were together)in high school who, at the age of 2 & 3, had been raped by her uncle and grandfather. I put a Baseball bat in the trunk of my car and told her if I ever met either one of them I’d kill them.

    Shi-ut! I was maddest at her parents who didn’t do anything about it.

    She was emotionally a mess. Was scared to death of men, but always seeking the love and affection of one male. We never had sex and I don’t regret it. I broke it off because I knew I would have killed the uncle and grandfather. She needed to deal with it…NOT me! I didn’t think my spending the rest of my life in prison was the answer.



  • Ahhh thats too bad :x 😞

    I’m going to prison soon anyways, for some realllyyyy stupid stuff I did! Not for too long though…probably about 6 months or so. I’ll be happy to kill this uncle and grandfather however 🙂 might as well add a few murder charges to the list…good balance. jk 😉



  • @cystic:

    The fact is that the father by impregnating his daughter has victimized two people - his daughter and her child. Your solution would be to compound the crime by killing the child? As though this would “undo” the crime? From a rational-genetics standpoint, this doesn’t look to bad as there are some nasty genetic consequences possible (not likely tho’).

    One simple question: can you victimize a person that doesn’t exist yet, vitcimize in advance, so to say?
    I understand your point, CC, and it makes some sense. I will come to that later, when i try to draw some conclusions.

    The problem is that the laws are made by men. Sentence for rape: a few years, Sentence for being raped: probably lifelong…… .

    true. And the sentance for being conceived in this instance - death? Or life in a family that cares for the child vis a vis adoption? For the woman this is 9 months, however i do not think that by killing the child you will end or even mitigate her suffering.

    One quick thing here: why should a person that has committed no crime, but is a victim, suffer at all, be it 9 month, a life long, or whatever time?

    CC, please not that i never talked of born childs or killing them because they are “annoying”.

    so what is your threshold for the degree of inconvenience of a child and its consequences?
    inconvenient before birth therefore it deserves to die?

    You may have noticed that “inconvenience” is not part of my argument.
    It more comes down to: if we have two victims, or two persons which equal rights, whose rights supercede?

    (2) Why is there this small amount of time (about three hours after birth) that allows a woman to repudiate her child, before the mother-child attachment kicks in?…
    (3) something more metaphysical: When does life start? With the merging of two cells? …
    (4) something more religious: when does the soul get into the body? Do chimpanzees have a soul? …

    …2) don’t even go there. Unless all of a sudden civilization is meaningless, for it is these instinctual urges and the ability to disregard another’s being for our own selfish reasons that got the woman pregnant in the first place
    3) …Furthermore there is something different that happens with conception that does not happen anywhere else in human physiology, so i think that it is POSSIBLE that life may begin here. As it may never be proven, then why take that chance?
    4)good question? There is, of course, a biblical response to this, however despite my flagrant Christianity, i am not going down this road on this topic as it might keep my views from being taken seriously by atheists on the board.

    @2): Well, first, i think we have a massive decrease in civilization in the last few years, fortunately that has not reached into this topic yet (but soon someone will talk about money, worth, net gain and pregnancy). Second, yes, civilization is “unnatural”, and aims at a higher goals, like overcoming these urges. But do i have to expect that the victim of the urges must -with no other choice- overcome her “urges” and keep the child? This surely is not “eye for an eye”, but a very christian approach (which i can fully accept when done by you CC). Still, there are lots of people here who cried for vengence after the attack on the twin towers. If those put out the above argument, i could not accept that: they claim the right to follow their primal urges for themselves, but do not allow others to do it.
    So, it comes down to “who throws the first stone”, and i do not claim for myself that i would be the one without any fault.
    @ 3) (including some parts of 4): good argument, but we have clues when the sensory equipment is formed, when the first nerve cells appear. Before that, well, it is alive, but does it notice anything except via hormones?
    @ 4): i am interested in what the bible says, and how you would interprete that. I promise i will not use it in the argument, it is pure interest.

    A bunch of cells, without any sensory cells or even other nerves has more rights and can force a -possibly abused- human being of what it has to do?

    well, this is a tricky question. do they have rights? To live? I hope so. To impose their will on another being? to one degree i hope as well.

    This is the point where we differ: in the amount/degree that one life can impose its interest on others.
    You give the unborn live more rights than i do, i give the woman more rights than you do.
    We should try to find and mark the areas where we differ, and listen to each others reasoning for each position. I guess we will come to a point then where we both agree on both sides rights, and have to rely on our “gut feelings” then. … But even then, whatever we discuss here: We are men, we cannot get pregnant. Whatever we say has to be taken under the premise that we are ignorant to a degree (a loosely similar situation would be us two discuss about where racial discrimination starts, we both would be “unafflicted” by that also).

    So, my point:
    I start with equal rights for unborn baby and woman, in question the womans rights supercede. Plus: Before any nerve cells are created within the unborn life, i would “decrease” its amount of rights slightly, haven’t thought of how little though (your turn to question me about that 🙂 )



  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    This is such a non-issue F_alk. What percentage of women seeking abortions have been raped and impregnated by the fathers? Seriously, I would like a figure on this. Why don’t you deal with the facts as they are, and that is: most women get them becuase they simply don’t want the baby.

    Does the percentage make a difference??
    No, not to me. If there is a single woman who got raped and does not want to live bearing that child, that is enough.
    Your arguments falis totally: As less than 50% of all people in the world are criminals, why should we think about it…. makes no sense. Or where do you put that percentage-barrier? Where would you put it if you were affected: Even if it was the least-happening crime, i bet if you were hit by that, you wouldn’t care about how unlikely it is.

    The problem is that the laws are made by men.

    This is seriously your argument? Does this mean no law in this country is legitimate simply because it’s “made by a man.” Are you aware that they are female supreme court justices also?

    Yes, this is an argument, and i believe that it is valid. This law is not a law that covers both men and women equally, because our physiology doesn’t allow that. Other laws are unaffected by that, both men and women can be shot, robbed, etc. etc., but men can’t get pregnant. Still, men make laws about that, and that they have to do on the base of “hear-say”.

    A bunch of cells, without any sensory cells or even other nerves has more rights and can force a -possibly abused- human being of what it has to do?

    You can always tell the pro-abortion folks have lost the argument when they start spewing this crap out. 😉

    I take it that you are contra-abortion.
    Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet, but you can be a “hero” killing “against injustice” and “for peace”?
    How can you accept civilian casualties in war. D:S, you have never proven yourself to be on higher moral grounds, you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you. How comes that you now say something so differently? You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has? How many times have you beaten up someone, and on what occasions?



  • Okay, I’m gonna try my hardest to decipher this piece by piece F_alk. 😛

    I take it that you are contra-abortion.

    Yes.

    Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet

    …is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.

    but you can be a “hero” killing “against injustice” and “for peace”?

    Not sure how this relates to the topic, but let’s keep going…

    How can you accept civilian casualties in war.

    Ohhhh, this is my favorite line yet. :lol:
    By making the comparison between an aborted baby and a civilian casualty-of-war, you’re not helping your position. I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.

    Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.

    Is this the point where you try to convince me that abortion saves many more lives? Oh wait, it doesn’t. 😞

    D:S, you have never proven yourself to be on higher moral grounds

    Umm…ok. 😉

    you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.

    You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:

    How comes that you now say something so differently?

    What was it that I said in the first place?

    You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?

    Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion? The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way. You might make sense if you were talking about going to aborting the rapist, but killing an innocent baby ON PURPOSE??? This MAKES NO SENSE BUDDY!



  • Kinda hard debating these points when one of you believes cells,a fetus, a cancer is a human being and the other does not believe it is a human being.

    I believe I have read that a majority of medical professionals and scientists in the US(cannot say the world) believe that a fertilized ovum(?) is a potential human being.

    Oh, c_c_! Where are you?
    Any sources for facts and damned statistics appreciated.



  • @Xi:

    Kinda hard debating these points when one of you believes cells,a fetus, a cancer is a human being and the other does not believe it is a human being.

    I believe I have read that a majority of medical professionals and scientists in the US(cannot say the world) believe that a fertilized ovum(?) is a potential human being.

    Oh, c_c_! Where are you?
    Any sources for facts and damned statistics appreciated.

    i’ve done my baby delivering, and i’m in a completely different specialty right now.
    the fact is that some fertilized ovums are potential human beings. It has correctly been pointed out that some are “ectopic” pregnancies - i.e. are non-viable and may kill the mother. Some are also considered “aneuplody” - “not good numbers” referring to a number of chromosome sets that are not compatible with life. Some DO live, but not very long. Down’s syndrome is an example of this and many Down’s babies do not survive birth.



  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet

    …is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.

    I do not have a professional medical opinion as i am not working in the medical field. But: For sensory impressions and to think you need nerves, and more than one. Thus, as long as the unborn human is more a bunch of cells (kind of un-diversified stem cells and no nerve cells), it cannot think or even feel anything.

    How can you accept civilian casualties in war.

    I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.

    Easy, because you don’t either….
    i will quote you:

    The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way.

    The civilian did the same. Maybe the civilian is not killed on purpose, but his death is taken into account, it’s accepted as something “inevitable”. The deaths of all the citizens of the cities during the terror bombing in WW2, or when the nukes where used…. these were not accidental.

    …Better the civilian shuts up and dies for the greater cause, right?..
    Or is it the old Stalin saying: “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics?”

    Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.

    Which right do you have to declare whose right is more important than others? If i said, well sorry, your right is second to this persons right… you certainly would say: “oh yes, how could i not see that…”
    Well, it is the civilians right to die in a war, it is the generals right to decide which soldier doesn’t die (but not sending him to the front), it is the bomber pilots right to decide which child loses his parents, it is the terrorists right to decide whose husband dies, etc. etc. you seem to accept those, but not the one other thing.
    The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

    On wars saving lives, well you believe that from your heart. I couldn’t convince you the earth was round if you believed it from the heart to be flat.

    you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.

    You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:

    You do not say i am wrong with what i think of you.
    And you are not that wrong. If you take out anothers eye in return, then “we” (all the ones not in that conflict) need to look wether it was “in return”, or wether you actually are the first to take out the eye.

    Second, you need to have a look a game-theory.

    You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?

    Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion?

    I was going onto the bigger picture. Sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough. The point is “who has the right to decide when to do violence”. When and how do you “gain” that right? You gain it for self-defense, and most often as “revenge” (see “war against terrorism” etc)…. well, except you are a woman, then you are not allowed to act violently in response…

    It should be targeted on the rapist first. But: if the rape leads to a pregancy, how can you force the woman to give birth to a child of the rapist? To nurture it and let it grow, that “thing” that she didn’t want, that reminds her of the rape and humiliation, that is made of half the genes of the rapist…
    How can you force her to suffer more and longer, and what do you do to undo/justify these extra sufferings? People get millions of bucks because their coffee is sold hot to them, and they are too stupid to handle it. How much worth is it to force a woman to bear this kind of child, or permant denial-of-rights (what if she planned (before the rape) to do something that could now harm the kid) …



  • @F_alk:

    @Deviant:Scripter:

    Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet

    …is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.

    I do not have a professional medical opinion as i am not working in the medical field. But: For sensory impressions and to think you need nerves, and more than one. Thus, as long as the unborn human is more a bunch of cells (kind of un-diversified stem cells and no nerve cells), it cannot think or even feel anything.

    Interestingly enough this applies to many of my patients who still have a very significant number of neurons - and yet they can not think or feel anything (or breath apart from a respirator). Given these people’s burden on society - should they be allowed to keep living? A very unaggressive approach would be to simply not keep them alive - something we all might repudiate if thought he had a chance at life. Yet we are actively killing someone in the same state and this option is embraced by the pro-baby-death coalitions.

    How can you accept civilian casualties in war.

    I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.

    Easy, because you don’t either….
    i will quote you:

    The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way.

    The civilian did the same. Maybe the civilian is not killed on purpose, but his death is taken into account, it’s accepted as something “inevitable”. The deaths of all the citizens of the cities during the terror bombing in WW2, or when the nukes where used…. these were not accidental.

    …Better the civilian shuts up and dies for the greater cause, right?..
    Or is it the old Stalin saying: “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics?”

    i agree with D:S on this one. Both the civilian and the baby are innocent. They are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In my mind they are both evil and tragic occurrances.

    Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.

    Which right do you have to declare whose right is more important than others? If i said, well sorry, your right is second to this persons right… you certainly would say: “oh yes, how could i not see that…”
    Well, it is the civilians right to die in a war, it is the generals right to decide which soldier doesn’t die (but not sending him to the front), it is the bomber pilots right to decide which child loses his parents, it is the terrorists right to decide whose husband dies, etc. etc. you seem to accept those, but not the one other thing.
    The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

    right

    On wars saving lives, well you believe that from your heart. I couldn’t convince you the earth was round if you believed it from the heart to be flat.

    others of us believe that lives are valuable regardless of their age from our heart. Does this make me similarly dogmatic? Maybe.

    you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.

    You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:

    You do not say i am wrong with what i think of you.
    And you are not that wrong. If you take out anothers eye in return, then “we” (all the ones not in that conflict) need to look wether it was “in return”, or wether you actually are the first to take out the eye.

    Second, you need to have a look a game-theory.

    I’m of the “you were once told an eye-for-an-eye but i say to you love your enemies (etc.)” school. Pre-emptive eye-taking is inappropriate. Is this what abortion is? Or are we talking about hostilities in Iraq?

    You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?

    Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion?

    I was going onto the bigger picture. Sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough. The point is “who has the right to decide when to do violence”. When and how do you “gain” that right? You gain it for self-defense, and most often as “revenge” (see “war against terrorism” etc)…. well, except you are a woman, then you are not allowed to act violently in response…

    It should be targeted on the rapist first. But: if the rape leads to a pregancy, how can you force the woman to give birth to a child of the rapist? To nurture it and let it grow, that “thing” that she didn’t want, that reminds her of the rape and humiliation, that is made of half the genes of the rapist…
    How can you force her to suffer more and longer, and what do you do to undo/justify these extra sufferings? People get millions of bucks because their coffee is sold hot to them, and they are too stupid to handle it. How much worth is it to force a woman to bear this kind of child, or permant denial-of-rights (what if she planned (before the rape) to do something that could now harm the kid) …

    One must consider:

    1. bad things happen to people. Regardless of if we planned it that way, we must live with the consequences - be it paraplegia of a ski-ing accident or a random shooting - it’s not fair and it’s not right. At the same time, is this victim permitted to take their misfortunes out on another person - their doctor, an orderly, or some person who pisses them off - by killing or otherwise hurting them?
    2. 9 months vs. life. One might suggest that if the woman by having the child would die then abortion might be more acceptable - that her right might well equal or even supercede that of the child. At the same time, given that she finds out about the pregnancy usually within a month, begins to show by 5-6 months and labors for typically less than 8-24 hours - is this an appropriate exchange for the death of a child?


  • There is no single answer, right or wrong, to all the possible scenarios here, but I believe…

    in many cases the woman and man make a decision to have unprotected sex…this was/is still considered wrong in many cultures/religions…

    the woman feels forced/chooses to have an abortion…this was/is still considered wrong in many cultures/religions…

    “Two wrongs don’t make a right” seems to fit many possible scenarios here.

    In a previous forum here I mentioned that I had volunteered in a pregnancy crisis center for a few years. Many women came in for help after the abortion with guilt and remorse over what they had done. Some were dealing with issues from 20 years before.

    Another situation I mentioned was that of a friend who had an abortion after having 3 kids. Her 9 year old son found out and said(paraphrased), “Why did you do that? One more mouth to feed wouldn’t be that hard. The food bank or church would have helped. I wish you would have had the baby.” Now mom, dad and three kids have to live with the aftermath.

    One abortion can effect a potential mom, potential dad, potential brother(s), potential sister(s), potential grandmother(s), potential grandfather(s) , potential aunt(s) and uncle(s), friends, neighbors, etc.


    Mother Teresa was asked if a cure to AIDS would ever be found. Her reply, “It was, but the discoverer was a victim of abortion.”



  • The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

    In the above quote you admit that it is indeed a “child”. Now as far as I know, killing a “child” is murder, is it not? Murder is against the law, is it not?

    I rest my case. 😛



  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

    In the above quote you admit that it is indeed a “child”. Now as far as I know, killing a “child” is murder, is it not? Murder is against the law, is it not?

    Killing a child is killing a child. When it dies in an accident, it is not murder. When it dies on the reasons that make murder, it is murdered just as any other person that dies on the same reasons. Killing a child does not equate murder.

    @cystic:

    Interestingly enough this applies to many of my patients who still have a very significant number of neurons - and yet they can not think or feel anything (or breath apart from a respirator). Given these people’s burden on society - should they be allowed to keep living? A very unaggressive approach would be to simply not keep them alive - something we all might repudiate if thought he had a chance at life. Yet we are actively killing someone in the same state and this option is embraced by the pro-baby-death coalitions.

    A tricky question indeed. I supposse the main difference is that the person in the coma/etc. once thought and felt. So, there are very slight differences between these two states you describe.

    i agree with D:S on this one. Both the civilian and the baby are innocent. They are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In my mind they are both evil and tragic occurrances.

    I hope that is a typo with you agreeing D:S, otherwise i didn’t make my point clear enough. I agree with the above, yet accuse that the civilian “collateral damages” are accepted as something that just “has to be”.

    others of us believe that lives are valuable regardless of their age from our heart. Does this make me similarly dogmatic? Maybe.

    When we break that down we come to the question: when/where does life begin. That would be another tricky question.

    I’m of the “you were once told an eye-for-an-eye but i say to you love your enemies (etc.)” school. Pre-emptive eye-taking is inappropriate. Is this what abortion is? Or are we talking about hostilities in Iraq?

    I don’t agree with pre-emptive eye-taking either. But as you might have noticed, my argument was not including each and every abortion, but abortion following a rape. So, i would claim that it is not pre-emptively.

    One must consider:

    1. bad things happen to people. Regardless of if we planned it that way, we must live with the consequences - be it paraplegia of a ski-ing accident or a random shooting - it’s not fair and it’s not right. At the same time, is this victim permitted to take their misfortunes out on another person - their doctor, an orderly, or some person who pisses them off - by killing or otherwise hurting them?

    This part should be taken by society, by punishing the wrong-doers. The question is, which part of society is to make up the order of the punishment? Should those who can’t be affected by a crime be able to set the penalty, or should those who can suffer it be the prime source for societies consensus?

    1. 9 months vs. life. One might suggest that if the woman by having the child would die then abortion might be more acceptable - that her right might well equal or even supercede that of the child. At the same time, given that she finds out about the pregnancy usually within a month, begins to show by 5-6 months and labors for typically less than 8-24 hours - is this an appropriate exchange for the death of a child?

    But how is she compensated for this prolonged suffering from the crime?
    You don’t want to victimize the child, so you seem to further victimize the woman.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 29
  • 21
  • 111
  • 15
  • 2
  • 71
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts