Abortion

[New England and The Maritimes]

See my edit.



I see nothing in that definition that requires someone to be used in the manner I described.

If somebody is drowning and you can swim, you have to try to save them or it's criminal negligence. Wouldn't that be forcing you to use your body to save or sustain the life of another?

That's not how it works.

[IshCong]

If somebody is drowning and you can swim, you have to try to save them or it's criminal negligence. Wouldn't that be forcing you to use your body to save or sustain the life of another?

That's not how it works.

Elaboration may be in order...

[Iuuvic]

I'm not lending an agreement or opposition to this - but you have to think of every part involved in this process:

1. the pregnant woman could just not tell the man with whom she's been having sex with that she is pregnant. No option for the man available. Any regulations requiring her to tell him is, again, inhibiting her life's rights. And what about victims of rape/incest ... should the man have any rights to this option, as well?
2. assuming she does tell him, how does he know the embryo/fetus is his (we can easily see some manipulative women telling the wrong man)? DNA testing ... which, at the earliest cannot be done until the 9th or 10th week. Also, some DNA testing can have medical risks involved for both the woman and the embryo/fetus. So if your intent is for the embryo/fetus to go through a full pregnancy, you're rolling the dice.
3. assuming she tells him, and the DNA does not exclude him as the biological donor, her consent to the entire transfer procedure would be required as it is a medical procedure upon her body.

There are more things to think about ... this is only the start.

1. If the she did rape the man then I don't get why a proven criminal should have more rights that a innocent, I think it would be illogical for a criminal to have more rights that their victim in any circumstance.

Has this been addressed? If a woman raped a man with the intent of getting pregnant would the man have a say in whether or not she should continue that pregnancy?

Just curious, thought it was an interesting question.

[Ifreann]

1. If the she did rape the man then I don't get why a proven criminal should have more rights that a innocent, I think it would be illogical for a criminal to have more rights that their victim in any circumstance.

Has this been addressed? If a woman raped a man with the intent of getting pregnant would the man have a say in whether or not she was allowed to continue that pregnancy?

No.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Has this been addressed? If a woman raped a man with the intent of getting pregnant would the man have a say in whether or not she was allowed to continue that pregnancy?

No.

This.

[Iuuvic]

Has this been addressed? If a woman raped a man with the intent of getting pregnant would the man have a say in whether or not she was allowed to continue that pregnancy?

No.

Why?

[New England and The Maritimes]

No.

Why?

For a similar reason to why your employer can't dictate what you're allowed to spend your money on. You don't own anyone else, and you don't own even a tiny part of anyone else. No injustice demands slavery as recompense.

[Ifreann]

No.

Why?

You don't lose all your rights when you're convicted of a crime, nor does your victim gain powers to control you.

[IshCong]

Why?

For a similar reason to why your employer can't dictate what you're allowed to spend your money on. You don't own anyone else, and you don't own even a tiny part of anyone else. No injustice demands slavery as recompense.

New queries:
Is he obligated to care for the resultant child?
May he sue for sole or joint custody?

[New England and The Maritimes]

For a similar reason to why your employer can't dictate what you're allowed to spend your money on. You don't own anyone else, and you don't own even a tiny part of anyone else. No injustice demands slavery as recompense.

New queries:
Is he obligated to care for the resultant child?
May he sue for sole or joint custody?

1. I would say no, being a victim of rape. 2. I suppose if he wants to. I'm not going to get into my views on custody here, because it's a big long sidetrack.

[Ifreann]

For a similar reason to why your employer can't dictate what you're allowed to spend your money on. You don't own anyone else, and you don't own even a tiny part of anyone else. No injustice demands slavery as recompense.

New queries:
Is he obligated to care for the resultant child?

Yes.

May he sue for sole or joint custody?

I expect that the child would be removed from the custody of a convicted rapist as a matter of course.

[Forsher]

New queries:
Is he obligated to care for the resultant child?
May he sue for sole or joint custody?

1. I would say no, being a victim of rape. 2. I suppose if he wants to. I'm not going to get into my views on custody here, because it's a big long sidetrack.

By all means create another thread. Abortion thread spin offs do well. Remember paper abortions?

[Vatican Administration]

A fetus is a Human at the moment of conception, PROVED BY SCIENTIST, Abortion is only legal in my country if the mother is in danger, otherwise, is illegal

[Ifreann]

A fetus is a Human at the moment of conception, PROVED BY SCIENTIST

Oh sweetie, we don't care if it's human. We're evil like that.

[IshCong]

A fetus is a Human at the moment of conception, PROVED BY SCIENTIST, Abortion is only legal in my country if the mother is in danger, otherwise, is illegal

1: "PROVED BY A SCIENTIST" --[citation needed]
2: This is not the RP forum...

[Iuuvic]

DELETED

Just saw new thread...sry

[New England and The Maritimes]

1. I would say no, being a victim of rape. 2. I suppose if he wants to. I'm not going to get into my views on custody here, because it's a big long sidetrack.

By all means create another thread. Abortion thread spin offs do well. Remember paper abortions?

That thread was where I outlined my position on parental rights and custody. Interested parties start here and read on. That's as far as I'll go with this particular brand of threadjack.

[Keronians]

Pro-life.

[Divair]

A fetus is a Human at the moment of conception, PROVED BY SCIENTIST, Abortion is only legal in my country if the mother is in danger, otherwise, is illegal

Prove it.

[Ifreann]

Pro-life.

Boo, hiss.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No. Every body is 100% normal and perfect in every way, and pregnancy never carries complications, and all lives work out exactly how you plan them. Every time. From this fact, I deduce that all abortion is evil and all women are stupid whores.

It's all so clear now. It's all been in my head the whole time! *slowly rises from wheelchair* I can walk! *falls on face* Nope. False alarm.

I love you!!!!

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Undecided as of now.

[Pilgrims]

It says if you hit a pregnant woman and the child dies because of it, the person who was hit should be stoned to death as per an eye for an eye. You might base it on that, but that's it pretty weak.

Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

²² "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or causes a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury [to the woman], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. ²³ But if there is serious injury [to the woman], you are to take life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So, as you can see - the only near mention in the Bible - refers to something that happens while something else happens (if a pregnant woman is hit while others are fighting - or fighting with her ... and she either gives birth or loses the fetus). If the woman is physically fine after, the only retribution stated in the Bible is monetary.

Nope, the bible does not actually have the words [or causes a miscarriage] nor the words [to the woman]. The "or causes a miscarriage" is only a valid translation to the extend that a miscarriage is premature birth. But there is no indication that injury is only applicable to the woman and not to the child as well. And no, there is no mention of abortion per sé in the Bible, but there is mention that murder is wrong and that you are already known by God in you mother's womb (i.e. while you were still a foetus). Thís is the primary reason why abortion is wrong from a Biblical perspective. The opinion of the catholic church has very little to do with the biblical perspective, since they based most of their dogma on church tradition rather than on the Bible itself. What is mentioned in the Bible (and condemned), was the pagan practice of sacrificing babies. The expulsion of the Canaanites/Amorites from the land are explicitly said to be as punishment for this (and other) iniquities.

My previous point was that the basis of your ethics will define your viewpoint on abortion. Secondly that the basis that is typically used to defend legalized abortion, is now also used to plead for legalized infanticide. You don't have to read the creationist article, but can google (e.g. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/03/05/Secular-Ethicists-Endorse-After-Birth-Abortion.aspx) for other articles that mentions this. My question to pro-choicers would be that since a baby is not yet a sentient human being to the same extend that a grown-up is, and since it is legal to abort it before birth, why would it be wrong to kill it after birth (either actively or by neglect)?

[IshCong]

Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

²² "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or causes a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury [to the woman], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. ²³ But if there is serious injury [to the woman], you are to take life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So, as you can see - the only near mention in the Bible - refers to something that happens while something else happens (if a pregnant woman is hit while others are fighting - or fighting with her ... and she either gives birth or loses the fetus). If the woman is physically fine after, the only retribution stated in the Bible is monetary.

Nope, the bible does not actually have the words [or causes a miscarriage] nor the words [to the woman]. The "or causes a miscarriage" is only a valid translation to the extend that a miscarriage is premature birth. But there is no indication that injury is only applicable to the woman and not to the child as well. And no, there is no mention of abortion per sé in the Bible, but there is mention that murder is wrong and that you are already known by God in you mother's womb (i.e. while you were still a foetus). Thís is the primary reason why abortion is wrong from a Biblical perspective. The opinion of the catholic church has very little to do with the biblical perspective, since they based most of their dogma on church tradition rather than on the Bible itself. What is mentioned in the Bible (and condemned), was the pagan practice of sacrificing babies. The expulsion of the Canaanites/Amorites from the land are explicitly said to be as punishment for this (and other) iniquities.

My previous point was that the basis of your ethics will define your viewpoint on abortion. Secondly that the basis that is typically used to defend legalized abortion, is now also used to plead for legalized infanticide. You don't have to read the creationist article, but can google (e.g. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/03/05/Secular-Ethicists-Endorse-After-Birth-Abortion.aspx) for other articles that mentions this. My question to pro-choicers would be that since a baby is not yet a sentient human being to the same extend that a grown-up is, and since it is legal to abort it before birth, why would it be wrong to kill it after birth (either actively or by neglect)?

Sentient =/= sapient, for the record.

[Pilgrims]

Although I still think that the reason for the differences in opinion on abortion is rooted in the different sources of morality, it seems that at least one woman claims to have a philosophical argument that should convince both atheists and theists here.