[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Spirit of Hope]

Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.

You are defining rape in such a way that non humans can not do it, then using the fact that non humans can't rape as an argument for a natural law against rape. That doesn't hold up logically.

Sexual coercion, including forced intercourse, exists in animals and in humans. There is no reason to think that sexual assault is wrong from a purely "natural" standpoint.

This is getting away from the topic at hand though, do you have logic for a "natural" law against abortion?

[Celritannia]

Science disagrees.which is why your comment is idiotic.

That is not the scientific concensus.

Provide an article that supports your claim

[Sundiata]

That is not the scientific concensus.

Provide an article that supports your claim

You made the claim that science disagrees. The burden of proof is on you.

[Celritannia]

Provide an article that supports your claim

You made the claim that science disagrees. The burden of proof is on you.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812642

Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications

Craig T. Palmer

The Journal of Sex Research

Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 355-374 (20 pages)

Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.

But we were talking about rape, rape inherently is violent...

To reiterate, you said:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

You were clearly talking about rape, so how are you referring to rape as a "neutral instance" which you have just defined as not involving violence?

[Sundiata]

You are defining rape in such a way that non humans can not do it, then using the fact that non humans can't rape as an argument for a natural law against rape. That doesn't hold up logically.

To be clear, an animal can rape a human being.

Sexual coercion, including forced intercourse, exists in animals and in humans. There is no reason to think that sexual assault is wrong from a purely "natural" standpoint.

I disagree, in the context of humanity that is tantamount to depriving a person of their well-being. Sexual assault, therefore, is not helpful towards the common-good of human beings.

This is getting away from the topic at hand though, do you have logic for a "natural" law against abortion?

Yes, from the moment of conception a person has an inherent dignity as a human being. The right to life follows from that, it is the most fundamental right a human being can have. The unborn are also the weakest and most vulnerable of our society.

[Sundiata]

You made the claim that science disagrees. The burden of proof is on you.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812642

Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications

Craig T. Palmer

The Journal of Sex Research

Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 355-374 (20 pages)

Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

After reading the article, it seems that Palmer's position is not the scientific consensus. He disagrees with his peers on the topic but his stance is not the consensus.

[Ifreann]

That absolute bullshit going on in this thread right now.

[Celritannia]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812642

Rape in Nonhuman Animal Species: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications

Craig T. Palmer

The Journal of Sex Research

Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 355-374 (20 pages)

Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

After reading the article, it seems that Palmer's position is not the scientific consensus. He disagrees with his peers on the topic but his stance is not the consensus.

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/jkywrm ... ngdom.html

Any creature that forces itself onto another against its will for sexual needs is classed as rape.

It is idiotic to deny this.

[Spirit of Hope]

Sexual coercion, including forced intercourse, exists in animals and in humans. There is no reason to think that sexual assault is wrong from a purely "natural" standpoint.

I disagree, in the context of humanity that is tantamount to depriving a person of their well-being. Sexual assault, therefore, is not helpful towards the common-good of human beings.

Not helpful towards the common-good of human beings is not a natural law, that is a judgement you are making. From a purely natural standpoint rape produces offspring, which continues the species.

This is getting away from the topic at hand though, do you have logic for a "natural" law against abortion?

Yes, from the moment of conception a person has an inherent dignity as a human being. The right to life follows from that, it is the most fundamental right a human being can have. The unborn are also the weakest and most vulnerable of our society.

Except you are placing the fetus's right to life above the mothers right to control her body. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will is depriving her of her well-being and is therefore not helpful towards the common-good of human beings.

[The New California Republic]

The right to life follows from that, it is the most fundamental right a human being can have.

Patently untrue, as shown by the fact that there are instances when that right is overridden.

[Sundiata]

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.

But we were talking about rape, rape inherently is violent...

To reiterate, you said:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

You were clearly talking about rape, so how are you referring to rape as a "neutral instance" which you have just defined as not involving violence?

I'm not referring to rape as a neutral instance there. I'm emphasizing that the force used to deter rape should remain as potent in situations which are unlike those involving rape.

[CoraSpia]

The right to life follows from that, it is the most fundamental right a human being can have.

Patently untrue, as shown by the fact that there are instances when that right is overridden.

When is it overridden in ways that are positive though?

[Spirit of Hope]

Patently untrue, as shown by the fact that there are instances when that right is overridden.

When is it overridden in ways that are positive though?

Self defense.

[CoraSpia]

When is it overridden in ways that are positive though?

Self defense.

That's generally an exception, because they are threatening to seriously injur or kill you. Part of the reason most pro-life people are fine with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Self defense.

That's generally an exception, because they are threatening to seriously injur or kill you. Part of the reason most pro-life people are fine with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

Not in Ohio lmfao.

[The New California Republic]

But we were talking about rape, rape inherently is violent...

To reiterate, you said:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

You were clearly talking about rape, so how are you referring to rape as a "neutral instance" which you have just defined as not involving violence?

I'm not referring to rape as a neutral instance there. I'm emphasizing that the force used to deter rape should remain as potent in situations unlike those involving rape.

You were specifically referring to rape in that sentence, so I don't know how you think you can argue that you weren't referring to it...

[Spirit of Hope]

Self defense.

That's generally an exception, because they are threatening to seriously injur or kill you. Part of the reason most pro-life people are fine with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

Any pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger. That some circumstances are more dangerous doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy and child birth are dangerous and can result in death even with the best medical attention available and no known dangerous conditions.

[Godular]

Self defense.

That's generally an exception, because they are threatening to seriously injur or kill you. Part of the reason most pro-life people are fine with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

The thing is, the woman's life is always in danger during a pregnancy. There is an ongoing threat of potentially lethal complications. While the risk is low, that does not negate the fact that it is there, and that people should not be forced into carrying a pregnancy against their will because it isn't a 'big enough' risk.

[CoraSpia]

That's generally an exception, because they are threatening to seriously injur or kill you. Part of the reason most pro-life people are fine with abortion when the life of the mother is in danger.

Any pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger. That some circumstances are more dangerous doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy and child birth are dangerous and can result in death even with the best medical attention available and no known dangerous conditions.

You might as well argue that the presence of drunk people on a street puts your life in danger. Having more unpredictable people walking around definitely leads to a higher likelihood you could get hurt, it doesn't mean we should ban alcohol or allow people to assault drunk people though.

[Necroghastia]

Any pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger. That some circumstances are more dangerous doesn't negate the fact that pregnancy and child birth are dangerous and can result in death even with the best medical attention available and no known dangerous conditions.

You might as well argue that the presence of drunk people on a street puts your life in danger. Having more unpredictable people walking around definitely leads to a higher likelihood you could get hurt, it doesn't mean we should ban alcohol or allow people to assault drunk people though.

If a drunk *does* assault you, though, you are justified in using the necessary force to get them to stop.

[Sundiata]

I'm not referring to rape as a neutral instance there. I'm emphasizing that the force used to deter rape should remain as potent in situations unlike those involving rape.

You were specifically referring to rape in that sentence, so I don't know how you think you can argue that you weren't referring to it...

Again, I was referring to rape but not as an example of something that is morally neutral. I'm suggesting that the force used to stop rape should not change across circumstances: good, evil, or neutral. Rape would be an example of an evil instance.

I think that is true objectively.

[CoraSpia]

You might as well argue that the presence of drunk people on a street puts your life in danger. Having more unpredictable people walking around definitely leads to a higher likelihood you could get hurt, it doesn't mean we should ban alcohol or allow people to assault drunk people though.

If a drunk *does* assault you, though, you are justified in using the necessary force to get them to stop.

Sure. A fetus isn't assaulting you though.

[The New California Republic]

You were specifically referring to rape in that sentence, so I don't know how you think you can argue that you weren't referring to it...

Again, I was referring to rape but not as an example of something that is morally neutral.

Again, I really don't know how you can argue that's what you were saying, look at the sentence:

In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If a drunk *does* assault you, though, you are justified in using the necessary force to get them to stop.

Sure. A fetus isn't assaulting you though.

What do you call eclampsia or a collapsed fallopian tube because of ectopic pregnancies?