Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,484 Year: 6,741/9,624 Month: 81/238 Week: 81/22 Day: 22/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 301 (296793)
03-20-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by ringo
03-16-2006 6:13 PM


Ringo writes:
If a woman is pregnamt and doesn't want to be, you have no "moral" right to tell her what to do. Your morals apply to your own life, not anybody else's.
We do have a moral resposibility, as a society, to take care of our weaker members. If we take away an option, we must provide an alternative.
This seems contradictory. If there is no moral right to tell the mother what to do then why is there a moral right to tell me what do if abortion is illegal. Conversely, if there is moral right to tell me what to do if abortion is illegal, then why is there no moral right to tell the mother that she cannot have an abortion (if the fetus is considered a person). Not to mention that:
quote:
We do have a moral resposibility, as a society, to take care of our weaker members
is an opinion and could just as easily be used to support a ban on abortion if a fetus is considered a member of society.
Ringo writes:
As for the OP, it doesn't make the slightest difference where the embryo/fetus/baby/child came from. It's the woman's decision. It's everybody's responsibility.
To me it does matter how she got pregnant. It determines where the responsibility is placed, whether or not her pregnancy was a result of her irresponsibility or someone else’s (in the case of rape).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 03-16-2006 6:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 301 (296799)
03-20-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ringo
03-17-2006 10:58 AM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Your moral obligation depends on the condition she is in, not on how she got into that condition.
I disagree. I feel that I am more morally obligated to help someone who gets screwed over than some who screws up themselves.
Neither a carrot nor a fetus is considered a "member of society".
But the people who are strongly opposed to abortion consider the fetus a member of society and the abortion of that fetus murder.
If society forces her to carry the pregnancy to term, they are morally abligated to care for the child. I may be stating it badly, but it seems blindingly obvious to me.
I would agree with this, like I’ve type before, if a woman is pregnant and an anti-abortion law becomes effective. But, if the law is in place already and she knew before she got pregnant that if she did she would not be allowed to have an abortion, then the responsibility is removed from the society and placed on the mother.
That's where the OP question comes in. A rapist forces himself on a woman. If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, society is forcing the pregnancy on her. She is being raped by society.
Which is why the phrase “except in cases of rape or incest” should be included in an anti-abortion law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 244 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-20-2006 1:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 243 of 301 (296801)
03-20-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:06 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
But, if the law is in place already and she knew before she got pregnant that if she did she would not be allowed to have an abortion, then the responsibility is removed from the society and placed on the mother.
Getting pregnant isn't a choice, though. I mean you don't choose to allow an ovarian follicle to release a fertile egg; you don't choose to allow your endometrium to accept a fetrilized egg. All these are things your body might do against your will after an act of sex, which you may or may not have chosen to do in the first place.
Which is why the phrase “except in cases of rape or incest” should be included in an anti-abortion law.
How do we substantiate rape or incest? If a woman comes in for an abortion, what's the standard of proof? A signed affidavit? Submission of a rape complaint to the police? Successful prosecution? An affidavit from her rapist? Seems like "only in case of rape or incest" doesn't prevent that many abortions. And it seems like the purpose of that is only to punish women who make the perfectly legitimate choice to have sex without intending to get pregnant - which is why the vast majority of people who are having sex have sex, btw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 301 (296803)
03-20-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:06 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
I would agree with this, like I’ve type before, if a woman is pregnant and an anti-abortion law becomes effective. But, if the law is in place already and she knew before she got pregnant that if she did she would not be allowed to have an abortion, then the responsibility is removed from the society and placed on the mother.
So if society limits the available options for women, the only thing it has to do to avoid dealing with the reprecussions is say "hey, we told you we were limiting your options?"
Wow, that's handy.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:39 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 301 (296806)
03-20-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by crashfrog
03-20-2006 1:15 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Getting pregnant isn't a choice, though.
But it IS a result of the choices you make.
I mean you don't choose to allow an ovarian follicle to release a fertile egg; you don't choose to allow your endometrium to accept a fetrilized egg. All these are things your body might do against your will after an act of sex, which you may or may not have chosen to do in the first place.
Yeah, so when you have sex and you don’t want to get pregnant, you should be careful about it. And if abortion is illegal, then you should be even that much more careful, as one of the methods of dealing with the pregnancy is removed. But if that method has been removed, I don’t think that the rest of the society should pick up the slack in the responsibility. The people having sex should be more responsible.
Now I realize that you can be the most careful possible and still get pregnant. That is one of the risks you take, and should understand, when having sex. If abortion is made illegal, you should understand that sex has become more risky, and be more responsible, not put the responsibility on someone else.
How do we substantiate rape or incest?
I don’t know. Surely we have some method of determining when a person has been raped in the judicial system. Some method could be created but I cannot present one.
Seems like "only in case of rape or incest" doesn't prevent that many abortions.
The illegality would prevent the abortions, that phrase would allow them. I don’t think it would allow that many though. Its not like your gonna say, “Oh damn, baby, you’re pregnant. Let’s just tell them that I raped you so we can get an abortion.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 268 by nator, posted 03-20-2006 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 301 (296807)
03-20-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dan Carroll
03-20-2006 1:20 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
So if society limits the available options for women, the only thing it has to do to avoid dealing with the reprecussions is say "hey, we told you we were limiting your options?"
So the Patriot Act was passed and allowed for people to get searched for 'reasonable suspicion’ instead of ”reasonable cause’. Now, lets say someone gets searched for terrorist suspicion but they only find illegal drugs. Should society take on some of the responsibility of that person because it got harder to carry drugs around or should that person be more careful when carrying drugs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-20-2006 1:20 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 249 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-20-2006 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 301 (296808)
03-20-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:31 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
But it IS a result of the choices you make.
Sure, but an undesirable one. Are you saying we don't have a right to mitigate undesirable risk? If I make the choice to drive a car, I can't use a seatbelt and airbag to mitigate the risk of injury?
If I'm walking through a bad neighborhood and I get mugged, I don't have the right to see my attacker put behind bars because I made a choice to walk that way? I don't get what you're trying to say, here. We have a right to mitigate the undesired consequences of our choices.
Yeah, so when you have sex and you don’t want to get pregnant, you should be careful about it.
The vast majority of people getting abortions were being careful. They made a reasonable choice and are now mitigating the undesired outcome of that choice. I don't see the problem.
That is one of the risks you take, and should understand, when having sex.
People take risks all the time. People do risky things. Walking out on the street is riskier than staying indoors. But people also have a right to mitigate those risks.
If abortion is made illegal, you should understand that sex has become more risky, and be more responsible, not put the responsibility on someone else.
So, if a woman is out after dark and is raped, it's her fault for doing something she knew was risky, and she shouldn't put the responsibility on her rapist?
Surely we have some method of determining when a person has been raped in the judicial system.
Yeah. It's called "trial." You're going to make a woman wait until conviction before she can abort the abomination gestating within her? You're a sick person.
Do the math, CS. A normal human pregnancy lasts 9 months. A successful rape prosecution can take two years or more. Are we supposed to really believe that you support the right of rape victims to abort their fetuses? Unless you're an idiot who can't compare two numbers, this is nothing more than a dishonest screen to conceal your desire to prevent all abortions behind a facade of reason.
The illegality would prevent the abortions
Making abortions illegal doesn't prevent abortions. Your law against abortion stands to make one out of every three women criminals. Is that something you're prepared to do?
What prevents abortion is making abortion legal, and making contraception profligate. Trying to prevent abortions by banning them is like trying to cure colds by outlawing sneezing.
“Oh damn, baby, you’re pregnant. Let’s just tell them that I raped you so we can get an abortion.”
Why not? Why not have my wife show up, say "I was raped but I don't know who did it", get the abortion, and then refuse to complain to the police?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 2:14 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 301 (296809)
03-20-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:39 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Should society take on some of the responsibility of that person because it got harder to carry drugs around or should that person be more careful when carrying drugs?
You mean, should drug offenders recieve treatment for their chemical problem rather than jail time? Yes, they should. It's better for them and ultimately cheaper for the government.
What was your point, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 2:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (296810)
03-20-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:39 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
So the Patriot Act was passed and allowed for people to get searched for 'reasonable suspicion’ instead of ”reasonable cause’. Now, lets say someone gets searched for terrorist suspicion but they only find illegal drugs. Should society take on some of the responsibility of that person because it got harder to carry drugs around or should that person be more careful when carrying drugs?
1) The Patriot Act should not have been passed.
2) Drugs should not be illegal.
But that's neither here nor there... unless you're saying that women who enjoy sex should be treated like suspected terrorists, I fail to see the relevance.
The more apt comparison would be cutting funding to rehab programs, and then saying, "Hey, you knew there were no rehab programs available when you did drugs! It's not society's problem!"
The only logical repsonse to which is, "So if helping citizens in trouble isn't society's problem, then what is?" And your answer seems to be, "Anything where we haven't yet passed a law to make it someone else's problem."

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 250 of 301 (296811)
03-20-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Silent H
03-20-2006 10:48 AM


Ringo Buys More Ammunition
holmes writes:
Remember I already addressed this.
Did I not tell you I have a short memory? I don't remember.
The AAs specifically said there is NO exception for rape or incest.
Well, then I guess this whole thread has just been a waste of time.
Uh... it's over... The consensus was NOT that abortion was okay.
You're still looking at it from a very America-centric viewpoint.
The AAs have finally placed two members on the court they feel will reverse public policy, and immediately got an AA law on the lawbooks.
So I did miss the news last night. Abortion is now illegal in the US?
There is no universal consensus on the subject of inalienable rights.
There may be no universal consensus on what rights are inalienable. There seems to be a consensus that there are rights that are inalienable.
The US (and a few other jurisdictions) notwithstanding, there does seem to be a widespread (if not universal) agreement that woman have a right to "body autonomy". I see that trend as increasing, not decreasing.
Your own commentary conflicts with some of the founding theories on it.
So George Washington et al. really meant "all men are created equal" to include black men? Subsequent legislators and jurists interpreted it to exclude women?
It seems that all that remains of the "founding theories" is the rhetoric - the buzzwords.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2006 5:02 AM ringo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 251 of 301 (296813)
03-20-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 12:38 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
If there is no moral right to tell the mother what to do then why is there a moral right to tell me what do if abortion is illegal.
There are no moral rights. Period. There are only moral responsibilities.
... if a fetus is considered a member of society.
If wishes were horses....
If a fetus was considered a member of society, there would already be laws against murdering it. There would be no need for specific anti-abortion laws.
The fact that some people want specific anti-abortion laws is an indication that they don't consider the fetus an ordinary member of society either.
To me it does matter how she got pregnant.
If you find somebody injured on the street, do you give them First Aid or do you try to find out whose fault the injury is?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 2:19 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 252 of 301 (296814)
03-20-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2006 1:06 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Catholic Scientist writes:
I feel that I am more morally obligated to help someone who gets screwed over than some who screws up themselves.
Your opnion is noted.
How many opinions do you think I'll need to collect before I can buy a cup of coffee?
But the people who are strongly opposed to abortion consider the fetus a member of society and the abortion of that fetus murder.
Are there no laws against murder?
That's where the OP question comes in. A rapist forces himself on a woman. If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, society is forcing the pregnancy on her. She is being raped by society.
Which is why the phrase “except in cases of rape or incest” should be included in an anti-abortion law.
But that's the whole point of the OP. How is a fetus conceived by rape less of a member of society?
(Edit: removed an extra "is" is. )
This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-03-20 12:14 PM

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2006 2:21 PM ringo has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 301 (296815)
03-20-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
03-20-2006 1:43 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
I don't get what you're trying to say, here.
If you’re down in East St. Louis at 3 o’clock in the morning and you get mugged by a crack dealer you’re going to get a lot less sympathy than if a crack dealer mugs you in front of your house in Columbia, MO. You made some poor choices that resulted in you getting mugged and the rest of society is less responsible for your protection if you are putting yourself in dangerous situations.
They made a reasonable choice and are now mitigating the undesired outcome of that choice. I don't see the problem.
The problem is that some people see abortion as murdering a person.
People take risks all the time. People do risky things. Walking out on the street is riskier than staying indoors. But people also have a right to mitigate those risks.
But you should still stay out of E’Saint at 3 am . .
So, if a woman is out after dark and is raped, it's her fault for doing something she knew was risky, and she shouldn't put the responsibility on her rapist?
No, you shouldn’t put the responsibility on people who are staying out of the hood.
Yeah. It's called "trial." You're going to make a woman wait until conviction before she can abort the abomination gestating within her? You're a sick person.
I’m wasn’t saying it was the best way. I don’t know how that would be handled and I’m not prepared to come up with a way to do it.
Unless you're an idiot who can't compare two numbers, this is nothing more than a dishonest screen to conceal your desire to prevent all abortions behind a facade of reason.
Neither of those are true.
Making abortions illegal doesn't prevent abortions.
I think it would.
Your law against abortion stands to make one out of every three women criminals.
They wouldn’t be criminals if they didn’t break the law.
Why not? Why not have my wife show up, say "I was raped but I don't know who did it", get the abortion, and then refuse to complain to the police?
There’s a lot of loop-holes in our laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-20-2006 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 301 (296816)
03-20-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by crashfrog
03-20-2006 1:45 PM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
What was your point, exactly?
That sometimes your options are limited and society doesn’t pick up the slack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 301 (296817)
03-20-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by ringo
03-20-2006 1:58 PM


If someone steps on a knife that shouldn’t have been there, they are less responsible for being cut than a guy juggling knives. It does matter how it came about, as it matters if the woman was raped or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 1:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 2:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024