Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Cyclotron]

With reference to your main point, Obiwan:

Is Bush right to defend the sancitity of life?

He is, but he is not right to strip women of the sanctity of their rights to do it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Demerzel
A woman who is forcedly reminded of that act every single day for 9 months is being tortured. She can't excise the psychological trauma if she has to face it every day.

For 9 months? Don't you mean for the rest of her life? I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone.

[Willem]

Obiwan:

A true life story. I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion without informing me about it. And I'm really, really glad she did. She was an alchoholic that I had only known for a short period of time. Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life. I might even have had to battle her for custody at some point. I would have been miserable, the mother would have been miserable, and the child would have been miserable.

It's really nice to look at the issue in terms of black and white, but that's not how life works.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Willem
Obiwan:

A true life story. I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion without informing me about it. And I'm really, really glad she did. She was an alchoholic that I had only known for a short period of time. Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life. I might even have had to battle her for custody at some point. I would have been miserable, the mother would have been miserable, and the child would have been miserable.

It's really nice to look at the issue in terms of black and white, but that's not how life works.

So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

And who are you to pass judgement on a situation you know nothing about?

I just so happened that we had been living together for awhile. It's not like I got some hosebag drunk one night and did my thing. I didn't realize she was an alcoholic until we had been together for awhile. When I did, I moved out. And I didn't find out about the abortion until later.

And no, I never had sex with her when she was drunk. I found her rather disgusting when she was like that. That's why I left.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


So now, Sava, you spit on the religious? I find it interesting that you single out for hate people of high morality that seek to protect life and Liberty, while complementing the cruel, the barbarous and the torturers. I see you have a fundamental grasp of right and wrong.

I have a problem with Bush enacting his religious agenda through government. I don't spit on religions, as I've said numerous times (although you fail to read so I ask myself why bother repeating it...) I don't care what people believe. I am a tolerant person. But keep religion and this whole self-righteous attitude out of government. Religion already had its chance at ruling governments, it was called the Dark Ages. No thanks.

Drop the stereotype that you have of me Ned, you seem to like to pick and choose the things I say and then spin it to suit your own preconception of me or liberals or whatever.

If you think Bush is of high morality than you have more problems than I thought

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

Maybe you should not tell him how to live his life and pass judgement on him and instead educate people and tell them to use contraception. but it's much easier to sit on a pedestal and judge, right?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sava


Maybe you should not tell him how to live his life and pass judgement on him and instead educate people and tell them to use contraception. but it's much easier to sit on a pedestal and judge, right?

Why thank you!

The moral of the story is that accidents happen, mistakes are made, and people make poor judgements. But a child shouldn't be forced to endure a miserable life just because the parents screw up at some point. And there are times, like in my case, that bringing a child into the world would only make things worse for everyone involved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava

I have a problem with Bush enacting his religious agenda through government. I don't spit on religions, as I've said numerous times (although you fail to read so I ask myself why bother repeating it...) I don't care what people believe. I am a tolerant person. But keep religion and this whole self-righteous attitude out of government. Religion already had its chance at ruling governments, it was called the Dark Ages. No thanks.

Drop the stereotype that you have of me Ned, you seem to like to pick and choose the things I say and then spin it to suit your own preconception of me or liberals or whatever.

If you think Bush is of high morality than you have more problems than I thought

I agree with you at times. Like this post. I fully agree that there should be separation of church and state. I do not believe, however, that Bush has used the power of government to enforce any religion on anyone. He is using, rather, the power of pursuation.

Of course Bush is a moral man. Almost excessively so.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course Bush is a moral man. Almost excessively so.

As excessive as water during a draught. I hope you being sarcastic. I doubt it though.

[Proteus_MST]

And even nowadays there are examples of the problems vou get if religion gets involved into the state, for example the islamic states like Iran (although it is getting better, since Khomeini passed away) or Afghanistan under the Rule of the Taliban (although there still is a lot of work to do, because most of the country is still ruled by local warlords without great Influence from Karzai).

Now for Sex with contraceptives:
Who is responsible if you take contraceptives like condoms or the pill while having sex but they fail?
Who is in this case responsible for the child?
By taking contraceptives you have made it clear that you don´t want a child.
Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?
It would be only fair.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Now for Jack.

"From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash."

"It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted."

"to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite"

Your example assumes that the unborn are not persons, the point being debated. Why do we cut wreckage? Because wreckage is just metal. Abortion is only immoral if another person is involved.

I specified "from the woman's perspective". You are leaving her to suffer for nine months.

I do not accept that the fetus is a person. But from the woman's perspective, this is irrelevant. We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims).

"These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth."

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

I was responding to your argument that abortion is life-threatening for the mother. So is childbirth. In both cases, the risk of death is very small.

However, in the case of rape victims forced to undergo torture (pregnancy), the risks are very much higher: they include the risk of death in a backstreet abortion and the risk of suicide.

And I stand by my earlier remark about politicians. I think a rape victim would have a legal right to assassinate the Attorney-General and the President of the United States if they were seeking to make abortion illegal. How could she be successfully prosecuted for this? She would be exercising her legal right to use deadly force to defend herself from torture.

It would certainly be an interesting case!

[Ben Kenobi]

In random order.

Jack

"We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims)."

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

"However, in the case of rape victims forced to undergo torture (pregnancy), the risks are very much higher: they include the risk of death in a backstreet abortion and the risk of suicide."

Just because some people die robbing banks, should we make it safer for bank robbers? Until you show why abortion is a moral decision, the backstreet abortion trope has no force.

Suicide risk is also present after abortion as well as after pregnancy. Should we recommend that a woman have an abortion, if she might kill herself afterwards?
This is why proper rape counselling is so important. We don't just ship her off to a clinic and be done with it.

"She would be exercising her legal right to use deadly force to defend herself from torture."

Who is responsible for raping her? The president? The unborn child? Punish those responsible, not innocent bystanders.

Proteus:

"Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?"

Contraceptives have an inherent risk of failure. Why should the company be responsible if they alert their customers that contraceptive failure is possible?

Even so, you would have to prove in a court of law that you used the contraceptive properly. Perhaps a video?


By having sex, you have announced your responsibility to take care of the child. That's why we have paternity tests, and child support laws.

Willem-

"The moral of the story is that accidents happen, mistakes are made, and people make poor judgements."

Mistakes have consequences. Why should the unborn child have to be punished because of your mistake? Why is he the one to die, just because his life makes things difficult?

"Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life."

Then why sleep with her in the first place? Could you have waited until you knew her a little better?

"For 9 months? Don't you mean for the rest of her life?"

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion. If the mother who has been raped does not want to raise her child, she should give him up for adoption, and find a family that will be able to take care of the child.

cyclotron-

Some good points here:

"The right to life only protects a person from being needlessly killed."

Please define need. In what sense can someone need to be killed? How does this apply to the unborn child?

"I have a right to life, but in that case it does not supercede the right of those people to their property."

Is the unborn child the property of the mother? Or the father? What about infants? Are they also the property of parents, why or why not?

"Forcing somebody to take care of a child and then charging that person with negligence when the child dies sounds an awful lot like slavery."

In what sense must they take care of the child? Again, adoption should be available. The problem for the first nine months is that the child cannot survive outside the womb, yet the mother, in the case of rape is not responsible for her position.

It only makes sense to save the child if the right to life is the primary right, surpassing property. The reasoning behind this is that in order to exercise any other right, liberty, etc. one must live. Take away the right to life, and you take away all the others.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
cyclotron-

Some good points here:

Please define need. In what sense can someone need to be killed? How does this apply to the unborn child?

I suppose a better definition would be the right to not be killed unjustly. However you define the right to life, however, I think it can be generally agreed that the right does not give us a right to never be killed or die under any circumstances. What I mean is that our right to life does not extend to all circumstances, and more importantly it does not entitle us to anything we want to stay alive.

Is the unborn child the property of the mother? Or the father? What about infants? Are they also the property of parents, why or why not?

If babies were property, than it would be the perogative of the mother to sell/destroy/abuse the child in any way she wants. That, however, is not the case. The child is not property, but the woman's body is the property of the woman. Thus, when I say that the right to live does not supercede another's right to their property, I mean that the child's right to life does not automatically entitle it (at least in the case of rape) to the body/property of another, in this case the mother.

In what sense must they take care of the child? Again, adoption should be available. The problem for the first nine months is that the child cannot survive outside the womb, yet the mother, in the case of rape is not responsible for her position.

First off, the nine months is an obligation on the part of the mother. The length of the obligation or the amount of hardship endured is irrelevant to the fact that pregnancy is an obligation. The problem with prohibiting abortion in case of rape is simply that you are giving the mother an obligation without her consent.

The mother simply does not have responsibility for the fetus if the fetus was forced upon her. When arguing against abortion, normally abortion foes say that it was the woman's choice to get pregnant, so she must live with the consequences of that choice. To say that the woman must live with the consequences even when she has not made the choice to do so is morally wrong.

It only makes sense to save the child if the right to life is the primary right, surpassing property. The reasoning behind this is that in order to exercise any other right, liberty, etc. one must live. Take away the right to life, and you take away all the others.

The right to life only supercedes the right to property of the same person. My right to life, however, does not trump another person's right to their property.

I have done my best to respond directly to your points. Could you address the examples I have brought up? I would seriously like to hear whether you believe that my right to life gives me the authority to use any and all of your resources to keep me alive. And not what you would do, but what you think the legal and moral obligation of every man is to do in such a situation.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18
In random order.

Jack

"We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims)."

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

For the Embryo to feel pain it has to have developed Nociceptors and at least some of the pathways necessary to process the pain signals, which are for example the spinoreticular, spinothalamic, spinomesencephalic and spinocervical tracts which project to the Thalamus and parts of the somatosensory Cortex.

Without ast least some of those pathways with established Synapses existent I really doubt, that the embryo really feels any pain during abortion.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Proteus:

"Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?"

Contraceptives have an inherent risk of failure. Why should the company be responsible if they alert their customers that contraceptive failure is possible?

Even so, you would have to prove in a court of law that you used the contraceptive properly. Perhaps a video?

A lot of couples make videos of their sexual intercourses

Originally posted by obiwan18

By having sex, you have announced your responsibility to take care of the child. That's why we have paternity tests, and child support laws.

That´s the question.
I think, by taking contraceptives you make it clear, that you really don´t want to take care of a child.
And if an "accident" happens it is normally the woman who does suffer, not we as males. We won´t be the ones who have a constantly expanding belly and we won´t be the ones who feel sick and clumsy (and normally have to stop working at a certain point of the pregnancy).
And we can also take the easy way if we don´t want to be together with the woman with which the accient happened by just paying alimonys (und thus calming our scruples) whereas the woman (without abortion) would have to bear the child at least 9 months regardless if wether she wants the child or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

"A lot of couples make videos of their sexual intercourses."

Proteus, but the question is would you show it to the judge?

"I think, by taking contraceptives you make it clear, that you really don´t want to take care of a child."

"And if an "accident" happens it is normally the woman who does suffer, not we as males."

However, if you are proved to be the parent, it no longer matters whether you want to take care of them or not, you still have to pay child support. The solution? Try not to have 'accidents' until you know you both want to have kids.

Abortion works best for the man at the expense of the woman. The woman faces the risks of sterility and complications, will not receive future compensation in the form of child support, as she would if she carried the child to term. The man faces no risks at all.

As for fetal pain receptors:

"Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77 "

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

As for fetal pain receptors:

"Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77 "

As it clearly states "fetus" I assume that all tests were made on fetuses (i.e. Week 8+ of pregnancy) and none on Embryos (before week 8).
Am I correct on this one?

[Sava]

obiwan, use the QUOTE function so your posts are easier to read... thank you...

[Ben Kenobi]

Cyclotron:

"I would seriously like to hear whether you believe that my right to life gives me the authority to use any and all of your resources to keep me alive."

Well, I'll try.

Your examples are another form of Judith Jarvis Thompson's concert violinist, and there are a number of ways to respond to this example.

First is the concept of family morality, whether or not as a family, you have obligations to your parents that you would not have to others, and that you have not consented to. The primary one is the obligation of children to their elders, do children have a filial duty to take care of their parents even though they have not consented to their family? I would say they do, even if the state cannot force such duties. Thomson denies such duties exist.

Secondly, there is tort law in the US, where one person who was a guest for dinner, wanted to stay the night given that there was a blizzard outdoors. The host argued that while he hosted for dinner, he was not required to be a host after dinner. He ended up sending his guest outside, into the snow, in an environment where the fellow was non-viable.

The ruling argued, that the host had a duty to his guest to protect his guest, even at some cost to himself, out of a sense of decency, and respect for persons.

Also, the proper place for an unborn child is in his mother's womb. There is no other place that the child could reside. This is different from the kidney example, or Thompson's violinist. Another person could donate their kidney to the violinist, you cannot be forced to sell your organs even if it means saving another person's life.

Finally, there is a difference between refusal/ denial of service and abortion. Abortion is the active killing of the unborn child, who is dissected and vacuumed out of the womb. Even if the woman cannot be compelled to supply her body, it does not make it right to kill someone outright. It does not give the right for abortion doctors to profit from the service they provide, nor for abortion doctors to kill the child.

The key word in the top statement is any and all of my resources. Pregnancy does not require the use of any or all of one's resources for a nine month period. Like the tort case, I believe that a mother should provide the minimal duty in order to keep the child alive- use of her body for nine months. After that, it's her decision whether to continue to care for her child.

Proteus, do you believe that the unborn child is no different than you are, that you were once in this position? Would you offer the same advice to your mother, even if it meant you would not be here?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Proteus, do you believe that the unborn child is no different than you are, that you were once in this position?

I see an unborn child a diferent from my current self.
Yes, it was the prerequisite to what I or you have become, but on all other aspects, for example consciousness or sensual perceptions I would say that an embryo differs a lot from a born child.
Part of it comes maybe from my study of neurobiology, where I have learned what kind of integration is necessary to process most kind of sensory Informations.
So I think it would be a mistake of seeing an say 4-5 weeks old embryo as something like myself, just smaller.
And therefore I don´t assume, that an embryo experiences any pain during abortion (for a fetus it may be different though, but even in this case I would support abortion if the pregnancy puts the life of the mother at risk)

Originally posted by obiwan18
Would you offer the same advice to your mother, even if it meant you would not be here?

Depends.

If my mother had died during my birth,
because she wasn´t allowed to abort despite the medics knowing, that she would put her own life at risk by bearing me, I certainly sometimes wished I had not been born.

If I had been the product of a rape with my mother being always reminded of the rape by looking at me and if she for example committed suicide during my childhood because of this, maybe I also wished I wouldn´t have born.

I had the Luck to be a wanted child and to be loved by both of my parents so I think it is difficult to say what would have been, if I had been unwanted.
And I think noone would doubt that there are a lot of unwanted children around the world, whose parents just raise them out of duty or religious reasons but not because they love them or wanted them.
It would be interesting to hear how those people answer your question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm.. sava. See how this works:

obiwan, use the QUOTE function so your posts are easier to read... thank you...

Didn't know that others found this easier to read.
I apologise if I've caused some eyestrain.

Proteus:

Yes, somewhere between 8-13 weeks.

Cyclotron:

It has been my experience that most religious people see their child as a gift from God. This alters their perceptions, most don't see their children as a burden.

As for me, I've been fortunate to have parents that love me. I don't want other kids to be denied this, even if their parents think otherwise. I agree that it is a real problem for the kids if their parents don't want them.

There are two approaches, one says let's conform the kids to the world by letting the only the wanted kids be born, or the other, let's conform the world to the kids. Is it the fault of the children to not be loved? Are you less of a person because your parents don't love you?

The way I see it, and I've said it here before, life is a continuum from conception onwards. Physically, we change every day, but what makes us people does not.

[Jules]

Well put, obiwan.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cyclotron:

Well, I'll try.

Your examples are another form of Judith Jarvis Thompson's concert violinist, and there are a number of ways to respond to this example.

Ooh, I'm impressed. Nobody I've talked to knows that but you.

First is the concept of family morality, whether or not as a family, you have obligations to your parents that you would not have to others, and that you have not consented to. The primary one is the obligation of children to their elders, do children have a filial duty to take care of their parents even though they have not consented to their family? I would say they do, even if the state cannot force such duties. Thomson denies such duties exist.

I won't take a stand on whether they exist, but I will argue that they are not relevant. Many people feel they have obligations to their parents, for example, but that is not reflected in our laws or universal concepts of morality. For instance, there are no laws stating that we have an obligation to support our parents. You and I may decide that is the right thing to do, but in the end we both admit it is our decision to do so; we are not obligated to do so except by our own personal concept of responsibility.

Secondly, there is tort law in the US, where one person who was a guest for dinner, wanted to stay the night given that there was a blizzard outdoors. The host argued that while he hosted for dinner, he was not required to be a host after dinner. He ended up sending his guest outside, into the snow, in an environment where the fellow was non-viable.

The ruling argued, that the host had a duty to his guest to protect his guest, even at some cost to himself, out of a sense of decency, and respect for persons.

I would agree completely, and this ecample works well against abortion.

It does not, however, work in the case of abortion after a rape. In your scenario, the host voluntarily admitted the guest, and then told him to leave later; that's like voluntarily becoming pregnant and then having an abortion. If the guest, however, had broken into their house and forced them to feed him, I think the court would have had a different ruling.

Also, the proper place for an unborn child is in his mother's womb. There is no other place that the child could reside. This is different from the kidney example, or Thompson's violinist. Another person could donate their kidney to the violinist, you cannot be forced to sell your organs even if it means saving another person's life.

I don't think there is a difference. Even if the only way the violinist could survive was by my kidneys, if I was the only person who could save him in the entire world, that still does not mean he has a right to my body without my consent. Let's say he needed a kidney transplant, and I was the only person with compatible kidneys in the world (we will assume that a transplant is the only option). I would still be under no obligation whatsoever to relinquish my organs to him.

Finally, there is a difference between refusal/ denial of service and abortion. Abortion is the active killing of the unborn child, who is dissected and vacuumed out of the womb. Even if the woman cannot be compelled to supply her body, it does not make it right to kill someone outright. It does not give the right for abortion doctors to profit from the service they provide, nor for abortion doctors to kill the child.

If I disconnected myself from the violinist after being forced to let him use my body, I would also be actively killing him, but it would be legal because he never had a right to my body in the first place. I do indeed have the right to kill him outright in such a scenario.

The key word in the top statement is any and all of my resources. Pregnancy does not require the use of any or all of one's resources for a nine month period. Like the tort case, I believe that a mother should provide the minimal duty in order to keep the child alive- use of her body for nine months. After that, it's her decision whether to continue to care for her child.

The actual duration doesn't matter. We need to address the basic question: Does the child's right to life trump the woman's right to her body? The answer must be no, based on all legal and moral precedent of our culture.

[Ben Kenobi]

We need to address the basic question: Does the child's right to life trump the woman's right to her body?"

We've been stuck on this dilemma for awhile. Now I ask, why must it be one or the other? What bodily functions does a woman lose over the course of her pregnancy?

The woman does not 'lose' her body, so much as she shares her womb, with the child. What does pregnancy cost her over the course of 9 months?

I'm weighing this loss, to the life of a child, and I do not find that they balance. If you accept Thompson's argument, then you cannot treat the unborn as less then fully human. You cannot say that there is only one person involved, when Thompson assumes two.

Also, you ignored my earlier example, why should an abortionist profit from abortion? Even in the case of rape? Refusal of treatment as in the case of donating a kidney is different from the active killing of abortion.

Many people feel they have obligations to their parents, for example, but that is not reflected in our laws or universal concepts of morality.

Are you saying that Law = morality? Some things, such as religion and being a good samaritan cannot be compelled, yet we still consider this moral behavior.
Honoring one's father and mother is a part of this. Thompson does not say that ít's a personal matter, but denies such duties exist.

the host voluntarily admitted the guest, and then told him to leave later; that's like voluntarily becoming pregnant and then having an abortion.

Not quite. The blizzard is analogous to the rape, an event beyond the control of the host that forces the problem. Also, the conclusion of the tort refutes your earlier argument. In certain conditions, the right to life will outweigh property rights. There is a limit as the host is not required, by law, to do more than to ensure the safety of his guest, as the woman cannot be compelled to do more than carry her child for nine months.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims)."

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

As we're talking about rape victims, we're also talking about early abortions. A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

"However, in the case of rape victims forced to undergo torture (pregnancy), the risks are very much higher: they include the risk of death in a backstreet abortion and the risk of suicide."

Just because some people die robbing banks, should we make it safer for bank robbers? Until you show why abortion is a moral decision, the backstreet abortion trope has no force.

Here we were discussing the relative risk of death to the mother. You were arguing that abortion was dangerous. For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous.

"She would be exercising her legal right to use deadly force to defend herself from torture."

Who is responsible for raping her? The president? The unborn child? Punish those responsible, not innocent bystanders.

The rapist is responsible for the initial rape, but NOT the subsequent torture. In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. They are NOT innocent bystanders. Unlike the rapist, they deliberately decided that the torture should take place, and are actively preventing the woman's escape from it.

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion. If the mother who has been raped does not want to raise her child, she should give him up for adoption, and find a family that will be able to take care of the child.

...After being subjected to nine months of psychological torture. She has the right to use deadly force to protect herself from this. Against the rapist, the fetus, and the politicians.

As I consider the use of "deadly force" against a small clump of cells to be no big deal, there are really no innocent people involved in this scenario except the rape victim herself. The rapist and the politicians are the guilty parties here.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Mistakes have consequences. Why should the unborn child have to be punished because of your mistake? Why is he the one to die, just because his life makes things difficult?

The child would have been punished a lot more if it would have been brought into the world, with a father that resented it's mother and all the hostility that entails. And don't offer abortion as an option, because my conscience wouldn't have allowed that, and I know she wouldn't have either.

Another thing I never mentioned was that she was an older woman, past her child-bearing prime. Along with her drinking, there would probably have been a good chance of some sort of birth defect. How much would the child have suffered then?

[QUOTE]Then why sleep with her in the first place? Could you have waited until you knew her a little better?[QUOTE]

It's very easy to pass judgement when you know nothing about the situation isn't it? A typical reaction by anti-abortionists, they expect everyone to be moral supermen. We both had our reasons for getting together. It obviously wasn't a good decision but it happened.

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion. If the mother who has been raped does not want to raise her child, she should give him up for adoption, and find a family that will be able to take care of the child.

Again I say you have a lot to learn about life and people. Adoption is not always an option. The bond between parent and child, especially the mother, is so strong that some people can't even concieve of abandoning a child.

And what happens in a situation where the the woman's boyfriend/husband doesn't want to give up the child? Should the woman be haunted for the rest of her life, being reminded of her rape everytime she looks at the child?

I get the impression that you are young, probably still living with your parents. It's quite easy to see life in terms of black and white when you don't have any real conflicts to endure. But once you get out into the world, you'll start to realize that there are all sorts of exceptions, a lot of gray.

I used to be anti-abortion myself when I was much younger, and in a way I still am. When I discovered that I was almost a father, it hit me like a ton of bricks. But I've come to realize that every situation is unique, and having an either/or reaction to the issue just doesn't work.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
We've been stuck on this dilemma for awhile. Now I ask, why must it be one or the other? What bodily functions does a woman lose over the course of her pregnancy?

The woman does not 'lose' her body, so much as she shares her womb, with the child. What does pregnancy cost her over the course of 9 months?

It doesn't matter that the woman loses her body, or doesn't lose it. The use of my property, however small or unobtrusive the use, is still prohibited without my direct or implied consent. The actual term or severity of the term is unimportant to my original question: Does the right to life trump another's right to property?

Also, you ignored my earlier example, why should an abortionist profit from abortion? Even in the case of rape? Refusal of treatment as in the case of donating a kidney is different from the active killing of abortion.

As for profiting from abortion, it seems logical to me that medical services have to cost money, whatever they are. I don't see that as a moral problem. If abortion is illegal, than it is illegal, but I see nothing wrong with doctors providing and getting compensated for a legal procedure.

In what way is refusal of the transplant after my abduction different from an abortion after rape? Both times, The victim has been forced into a situation where a dependent has been forcefully hooked up to their body. I see no difference between an abortion and me un-hooking the violinist from my kidneys. Since the release of the violinist is legal, so is the abortion.

Are you saying that Law = morality? Some things, such as religion and being a good samaritan cannot be compelled, yet we still consider this moral behavior.

I'm discussing morality that is generally considered universal. I am not aware of any country or society that finds a person's right to life comes before the right of others to their property, for instance. In contrast, being a good samaritan is not a universal value in the same respect. Universal morals are indeed quite close to law; they just aren't written down.

Not quite. The blizzard is analogous to the rape, an event beyond the control of the host that forces the problem. Also, the conclusion of the tort refutes your earlier argument. In certain conditions, the right to life will outweigh property rights. There is a limit as the host is not required, by law, to do more than to ensure the safety of his guest, as the woman cannot be compelled to do more than carry her child for nine months.

The blizzard is not analagous to the rape. If the man in the blizzard represents the fetus, than the fact that he was allowed in by the homeowner is analagous to a willing pregnancy. The blizzard itself thus represents a state of unlife or death. Rape would be the man forcing his way into the house and staying there, and abortion after rape would be the family then expelling the trespassing man from their house. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. It is analagous only to the abortion of a willingly concieved fetus, because the man was invited in.

[Spiffor]

I wonder why so many people try to use reason with Obiwan, as his perceptions of reality are completely different from 2003 people. He seems to imagine sex as a deep mark of trust and love between 2 individuals, and that meaningless or semi-meaningless sex doesn't exist (or shouldn't exist).
It is good to live in a dream world. However Obiwan, you must understand it is perfectly possible for people to have sex because they want the sheer pleasure of it, and not because of any external factors like love or common trust.
I don't know if you are married, if you live an extremely stable relation, or if you are a virgin. I don't know if you know people whose relationships last a couple of months or not, and in fact I don't care to know. But I can tell you, these people exist in the 2003 world, whether you find it bad or good.
These people are not necessarily sluts (or the masculine equivalent, I don't know the word), but simply look at sex as a terrestrial pleasure, not as a sacred gift from god.

I know one of these people who decided to keep the baby. She is abandoned by the father (who obviously wasn't ready for this), and is barely supported by the family or the welfare system. She is poor, and every problem of daily life becomes a catastrophe to her, since this situation is extremely stressful. She had to give up giving the breast to her baby too early because of the kindergarten (is that the name of the place you put babies ?), and she often yeels at her baby because of too much stress. She does everything she can to bring love to her kid though, and has no energy left to solve her own problems (she starved for one month to let her kid eat). This is not an exceptional life of misery. This is normal life for most single mothers. While she puts as much energy as she can, her baby will never have a satisfying development, and I fear for the future.
If one day you know a person in this situation, maybe you'll reassess your moralistic stance. If one day you have a 3-months relationship with a woman which included sex, maybe you'll understand as well.

Until then, I let you spit your moralistic stance as much as you like it. Please continue to live in your dream world, for it looks much more beautiful than the real one.

[DanS]

and is barely supported by the family or the welfare system

There seems to be a problem with this system, no? She should (and is, in the US) entitled to child support from the father.

Sometimes there are no excuses in this world.

[Spiffor]

The father did not recognize the baby yet (he abandoned her), and the judicial procedure which features a paternity test is not ended yet. Because of some new problems, the girl might completely give up the case, and will not be able to force the father to a paternity test before the baby reaches 18 (French procedures). Besides, the father is still just a student, and has been so shocked she kept the baby, that he refuses any contact with her or his kid. He will pay support for the baby only once proven the father, and only once he earns money.

While many right-wing people would consider the welfare she gets more than generous (about $1000 a month), it really isn't enough for rent, food, education of the child and studies : she is bound to her extensive home if she wants the kid to be in the kindergarten (if she moves, she has an extremely slim chance of being allowed in kindergarten again, and she doesn't have enough energy left to simply look for a better situation. Yes, kiondergartens in France really suck)

Yes, it is a sad story. And that's because I think of her, and other single mothers who explained me their hardships (not as extensively as her, granted), that I am quite rash to obiwan's or anyone who shares this kind of holier-than-thou speech.