"...except in the case of rape or incest."

But its not about them being less of a member of society. Its about aborting the child as being the lesser of two evils versus forcing a woman who was raped to have the kid.ABE:If a woman gets pregnant as a result of her actions, then I dont think abortion is the answer. But if someone forces her to get pregnant, then they've removed her responsibility and she should not be forced to be pregnant. Its not that a child that is the product of rape is less a member of society so its ok to abort it.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-20-2006 01:27 PM

If the fetus is not a member of society, why does society have a responsibility to protect it? Does society not have a greater responsibility to the woman, who is a member?

---

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

The people who think abortion should be illegal consider the fetus to be a member of society and consider the abortion of that fetus to be murder.

You didn't answer the question: If a person needs help - say medical attention - which has the higher priority? Give them the help they need? Or find out who's to blame?

---

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

Clearly they don't. We already have laws against murdering members of society. Either they agree that a fetus is not a member of scoiety or that killing it is not murder.

---

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

In conversation? Sure. In a court of law? Nope. Still the fault of the crack dealer. Legally? Not true. Cops, paid for by society, are still supposed to be patrolling that area. Society at large will still be footing the bill for the crack dealer's trial and incarceration.The lesson of the day: making a mistake does not make you a second-class citizen.Of course, this all assumes that the person was in fact making a mistake by being in that neighborhood. Maybe they're poor as shit and have to live there?Second lesson of the day: trying to pass laws that make blanket assumptions about whether or not a victim deserves sympathy is a very bad idea.

---

"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

Give them the help they need.

I wonder if there would be any difference in the court cases for the situations I described... Agreed. But in actuality, I think the difference would present itself.

Don't really know how to answer this. It's like asking, "I wonder, if I was holding a rock in my hand and let it go, if there'd ever be a situation in which it would fall up?"Nope. We're talking about what should and should not be legal, aren't we? The law would seem to be the start and end of it.

---

"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

Well we can just stop right there. There's no reason to continue discussing this. There's no way those cases would not be different and the explanation would be off topic. There was a little more to it than that.

Could you substantiate that from Missouri law, please? I'm asking you for the specific statutory language that allows people to mug you without penalty in East St. Louis at 3 am. Under the law those people are objectively, legally mistaken. They're free to hold their own opinion on the subject but they have no right to demand that others act as though they hold the same view. Maybe I live there. Why should I be expected to stay away from my home? Your position is ridiculous. If not you, then who? No one else is under an obligation to solve the problems with your position. If your position is untenable and indefensible, it's intellectually dishonest of you to maintain it. You're factually wrong. Meaningless and irrelevant. One in three women have had at least one abortion, and there's no factual basis for assuming this will cease to be true if abortion is made illegal. Therefore your plan turns one out of every three women into criminals.How will you punish these illegal abortions, CS? Jail time? You've argued that abortion kills a person; since the abortion is certainly premeditated that's a charge of third-degree murder, at least.Like I said nobody else is under an obligation to untangle the contradictions in your own position. It's your job to either do so or abandon an untenable position, if your desire is to be intellectually honest.

Because rape victims are blameless, but sluts should not be allowed to escape their penance?

quote:

---

The illegality would prevent the abortions,

---

No, it wouldn't. At least, not significantly.The well-off have always been able to go to a foreign country (or locate a discreete MD in this country) to obtain a safe abotion when they need one while the poor have historically had only spotty availability and are still often are unable to obtain a safe abortion in a timely fashion.It would also result in an increase in a black market of illegal and dangerous "back-alley" abortions performed in unsanitary conditions by poorly- or untrained people. It would also increase the incidence of infanticide and the abandonment of infants.Abortion has always existed, CS.It's just a matter of if you want it to be available and safe for all, or just for the rich.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2006 04:25 PM

No... really. When it comes to who is to blame, and whether society has to clean up afterwards, it makes no legal difference if the victim was mugged in a nice neighborhood or a bad neighborhood.Honest. Was there?

quote:

---

I've never exactly understood this exemption language in reference to criminalizing abortion, and I'm hoping that somebody who is anti-abortion can explain it to me.

---

---

"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

The problem here is that CS thinks that making abortion illegal will make people think that abortion is wrong; but that's irrelevant. Even the people who think abortion is wrong still get abortions.Abortion clinic workers have a lot of stories about seeing a pro-lifer protesting out in front of the clinic, and then, one day, sneaking in the back with her daughter to get her an abortion. (They're usually rude about it too, as though they deserve special treatment for deigning to take advantage of the services the clinic offers.)The next day she's back out there in front of the clinic. Almost one-third of women who get an abortion will answer in the affirmative if asked if they truly believe that they're murdering their child - but they do it anyway.You're right about the timelessness of abortion. Even the Bible offers a recipe for an orally-administered abortifacet (but like much of the Bible, it doesn't actually work.)