Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 188 of 301 (296031)
03-16-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 4:51 PM


After all, even with that you can still choose to love the child unconditionally, even though it was concieved in a dispicable way (Koine Greek: "Agape", meaning "unconditional Love")I dont think the unborn child here needs to suffer just for the way he/she was concieved.
But what about the father, then? Is the mother going to be forced to share custody with the rapist? What if she decides to put him up for adoption? Can her rapist decline to allow the adoption to proceed? (Adoption requires the consent of both parents where applicable.) All this, of course, presumes that the rapist has been caught and convicted by the time the child is born (a remote possibility.)
The rapist on the other hand needs to be hanged by his &*#@ and burned with blow torches for the punishment.
Assuming he can be caught and convicted. That's the end result of fewer than 20% of rapes, if not even less.
How are we going to deal with that? In a custody dispute, what's the burden of proof to revoke paternal rights from the father of the child? Must he be convicted of rape? Or is it sufficient that the mother of the child asserts conception through rape?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 4:51 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 301 (296035)
03-16-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by New Cat's Eye
03-16-2006 2:56 PM


I did see that, yes. Holmes made much the same point so I believe my message 74 works as a reply to your points, too.
But thanks for reminding me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-16-2006 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2006 5:20 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 191 of 301 (296036)
03-16-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by LudoRephaim
03-16-2006 4:51 PM


I dont think the unborn child here needs to suffer just for the way he/she was concieved.
It's important here to remember that the fetus is not going to suffer; the majority of abortions take place long before the fetus has any capability of awareness of pain. We're terminating the existence of something with no capacity to know that it is alive. It has less awareness than a pet (and euthanasia of pets is fairly common and not at all objectionable to most if done painlessly.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 4:51 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 301 (296126)
03-17-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by JustinC
03-16-2006 11:00 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
And if she does, why doesn't she need to give up some of her resources (through the placenta) in the couple of months before the baby is born? What's the significant difference?
Body autonomy.
Is the only issue, for you then, that the mother has a small chance of dying while carrying the baby and delivering it?
Well, it isn't that small; but no, for me, the issue is body autonomy. Human beings have a right not to have their bodies be invaded by another human being.
Do you feel abortion should be legal up until the couple of days before labor?
I don't know. I'm not comfortable restricting late-term abortions because that doesn't give a woman much time to:
1) suspect pregnancy after a missed period
2) obtain and perform a test for pregnancy
3) locate an abortion provider, possibly in another state
4) save money for procedure, lodging, travel
5) arrange work schedule to permit several days' absence
6) travel to provider, submit to tests, be counseled, have abortion
I mean it's not like you miss a period and you're in there the next day, having the abortion. Not to mention that there are a whole lot of organizations whose stated purpose is to delay your abortion by whatever means necessary until it's no longer legal for you to have one.
Does the mother have the right to abort it then? because it may be safer for her to have an abortion than to have a C-section or give birth?
Sure. She's under no obligation to put herself at risk for another person.
I'm just trying to say that the obligations and relationship between a mother and child or father and child is different than that between you and some random person you meet who is not your child.
I don't believe a mother-child relationship exists between a woman and an unwanted pregnancy. It's more of a relationship of antagonist-defender.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by JustinC, posted 03-16-2006 11:00 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by JustinC, posted 03-17-2006 4:15 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 301 (296189)
03-17-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Silent H
03-17-2006 5:20 AM


Ehhhh... I went back and looked at his post and see very little that I'd agree with.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you agreed with his post 100%. It was basically the last line of his post that I felt was relevant, and that I felt was similar to the point you had made.
Sorry for being unclear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2006 5:20 AM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 206 of 301 (296241)
03-17-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by LudoRephaim
03-17-2006 12:16 PM


Re: sources
But the source for the fact that pregnancy is 11 times more dangerous than abortion source is labeled "lbid". I've seen this in books, and everytime I do see it I get suspicious. What does lbid mean? Are they citing themselves?
It's actually "ibid", and it's a bibliographical term for "different page from the same citation." If you see it used like this:
quote:
C. Frog, A Book About Something (Frogger Press, 2006) p. 120
Ibid, p. 200
then you know it's telling you that the second citation is from page 200 of the same book used in the first citation. It's from the latin "ibidem", roughly "the same place."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-17-2006 12:16 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-17-2006 1:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 301 (296371)
03-17-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by JustinC
03-17-2006 4:15 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
Don't people have basic autonomy over other resources also
Well, clearly they don't. You mentioned taxation, that's one instance; another instance is the joint property I own with my wife. We could even be in a situation where ownership of that property could be disputed. I can buy and sell property, and the government can even seize it against my will via eminent domain.
That isn't true with our bodies. It's illegal for me to sell my organs and absolutely no one else but me can have a claim of ownership over my body. (That's called "slavery" and its illegal.)
One's body is a unique possession, and as such owning it confers unique privileges. One of those is the absolute right to determine who gets to use it or take residence in it.
I'm talking about the week or two before labor; surely the woman knows she is pregnant by this point and have ample time to get an abortion.
The week or two before labor actually occurs? Or before it could reasonably be expected to occur on its own? Or before the earliest it could be artifically induced?
According to your logic, it seems perfectly permissible to kill this fetus, which for all intensive purposes is the same as a newborn baby.
I think at this point the fetus should be evacuated from the body by whatever expiditious means are avaliable. If the fetus survives, great. Someone can adopt it. If not, well, it should have taken residence inside a mother who was interested in being pregnant.
If you agree that abortion should be allowed in cases such as these, do you also agree that this results in the killing of a baby?
I dunno. Infaticide could be a mercy, in some situations.
So exactly analogous to a woman and tapeworm?
"Exactly analogous?" What does that even mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by JustinC, posted 03-17-2006 4:15 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by JustinC, posted 03-18-2006 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 301 (296468)
03-18-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Silent H
03-18-2006 6:10 AM


Re: ringo goes off half-cocked
Its not bad enough to say a person has been forced to do something against their will, we must connect it to terms involving sex against will because that makes it worse.
I think it does make it worse than other kinds of violating acts. In our culture our genitals are hidden from view and held to be something deeply intimate and close to ourselves. Rape isn't just a violation of one's space, or of one's will, or of one's rights, but of one's very self. I think that's a worse crime; I think the intimate, sexual aspect of the violation makes it much, much worse.
But I guess our opinions on that can differ.
Oh, by the way - I did get the joke in the title and I thought it was funny, for once.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-18-2006 11:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Silent H, posted 03-18-2006 6:10 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 8:48 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 301 (296518)
03-18-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by JustinC
03-18-2006 4:40 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
I see no special or significant change in the fetus resulting from giving birth
Well, one sigificant change is that the fetus is no longer entirely dependant on the organs of another human being for almost every bodily function.
I think that's quite a significant change.
Just as a mother has certain responsibilities for the well being of the child outside the womb she should have certain responsibilities when its inside the womb.
Well, I think she does have certain responsibilities. It's just that none of those responsibilities mandate that she maintain an antagonistic fetus inside of her uterus.
For the sake of argument, the point when the fetus is indentical to healthy newborn.
Healthy newborns have inflated, functional lungs, an operating digestive track, and the capacity to render food into a usable form (rather than relying on the mother's digestive tract as an energy source.) No fetus shares these characteristics.
What I meant is does the mother have no more responsibilites towards the fetus than she does towards the tapeworm.
I'm not sure. I don't believe that she has any responsibilities that mandate that she offer her uterus as lodging to an antangonistic human being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by JustinC, posted 03-18-2006 4:40 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by JustinC, posted 03-21-2006 12:59 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 228 of 301 (296583)
03-19-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Silent H
03-19-2006 8:48 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
actually - pretty much entirely off-topic. I'd like to return to the original topic, not spiral out of control with Holmes.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-19-2006 11:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 8:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 230 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 1:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 231 of 301 (296613)
03-19-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
03-19-2006 12:57 PM


Please Edit
I was hoping that this wouldn't happen, but I rethought my post after I posted it and decided that I would prefer not to take us any farther off-topic. To that end I would prefer that you edit your post and remove the words of mine that you have quoted. Please? You're of course free to leave your own words as you see fit but I'd just as soon my post was eliminated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 301 (296671)
03-19-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
03-19-2006 12:57 PM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
Why call all instances of where a person's will has been overcome as rape?
Well, I certainly think that's a mistake. While the term "rape" itself comes from a latin word meaning "to steal", in the modern vernacular it properly applies only to sexual assault.
Like I said this seems pretty off-topic, and I hadn't really been following your discussion with Ringo until you said something off-hand that I didn't agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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 1466 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024