Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 301 (289831)
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


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. I understand that some who oppose abortion oppose it in any case whatsoever, but I don't understand the reasoning behind the moderates who allow in the case of rape and incest. I'm hoping that some of them would be kind enough to explain it to me. I, of course, support abortion for any reason the mother sees fit.
Rape, of course, I understand. Allowing for exceptions in the case of women who were involuntarily impregnated could be argued as the lesser of two tragedies. That I understand. But incest?
Involuntary incest would be rape, and so covered under the exception for rape. So by specifically referring to incest these anti-abortion proponents indicate that they would allow for rape in the case of voluntary incest as well, and I can't discern from their arguments why this would be the case. Why should women who have voluntarily had sex with their brother or cousin or whatever be allowed to use abortion as birth control when more mainstream women cannot? Seems unfair.
Unless we're saying that a child born of incest should not be allowed to be born, and that's a surprisingly eugenic position for anti-abortion advocates to choose. It's the genetic undesirability of the fetus, I imagine. But genetic flaws can strike any couple. If my wife becomes pregnant but the fetus tests positive for, say, trisomy 23, why is it that abortion is inaccessable to us simply because my wife and I are not brother and sister? Why should we have to be siblings for our genetically flawed fetus to be aborted? Still not fair.
Like I said, I don't understand it. I've asked around and mostly I just get funny looks. I rather suspect that "except in the case of rape or incest" is just a phrase that abortion foes toss off without really thinking about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-12-2006 3:11 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 3 by JustinC, posted 03-12-2006 5:40 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 5 by Michael, posted 03-12-2006 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-14-2006 11:32 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2006 12:10 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 186 by LudoRephaim, posted 03-16-2006 4:51 PM crashfrog has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 2 of 301 (294556)
03-12-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


i think the problem is that most fundies don't seem to recognize that familial rape is rape. 50 to 60 percent of child molestors are first generational male relatives. fathers, uncles, brothers, grandfathers. and yet the only people you hear about on the news are catholic priests and pop culture has-beens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 03-14-2006 10:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4834 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 3 of 301 (294617)
03-12-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


quote:
Rape, of course, I understand. Allowing for exceptions in the case of women who were involuntarily impregnated could be argued as the lesser of two tragedies. That I understand. But incest?
I don't even understand this much. According to most anti-abortionists, "Abortion is murder." So what does it matter how a human being came about, rape or voluntary sex? A person comes into existence at conception, according to them, so isn't it still murder? Why punish this person for the sins of the father?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM JustinC has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 4 of 301 (294633)
03-12-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JustinC
03-12-2006 5:40 PM


According to most anti-abortionists, "Abortion is murder."
That's what they say when asked.
I always assumed that, for many of them, the real issue is that the woman ought to be required to bear the child as punishment for her sexual sins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JustinC, posted 03-12-2006 5:40 PM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 10:55 AM nwr has not replied

Michael
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 5 of 301 (294651)
03-12-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


So by specifically referring to incest these anti-abortion proponents indicate that they would allow for rape in the case of voluntary incest as well ...
I think you might mean "... abortion in the case of voluntary incest as well ..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 1:01 PM Michael has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 6 of 301 (295190)
03-14-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
03-12-2006 6:19 PM


I always assumed that, for many of them, the real issue is that the woman ought to be required to bear the child as punishment for her sexual sins.
The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience, like the Nazis and the Jews, but with the US Government's approval.

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-14-2006 11:05 AM Tal has replied
 Message 9 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 11:54 AM Tal has replied
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 03-14-2006 3:06 PM Tal has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 301 (295195)
03-14-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
03-14-2006 10:55 AM


The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience
Lord knows, an invasive medical procedure that leaves you sick as a dog, hormonally all over the place, and experiencing the joys of a month-long period is incredibly convenient. Especially if you get the fun of a bunch of dickweeds screaming at you as you approach the clinic.
Gosh, abortions are such a walk in the park. That's why they're used for convenience's sake all the time.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 10:55 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 2:56 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 301 (295202)
03-14-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


thoughts on another controversial topic
crashfrog writes:
I understand that some who oppose abortion oppose it in any case whatsoever, but I don't understand the reasoning behind the moderates who allow in the case of rape and incest. I'm hoping that some of them would be kind enough to explain it to me. I, of course, support abortion for any reason the mother sees fit.
I have defined myself as a "pro-choice Christian---a position that earns me scorn from the right wingers, but I would guess that the reason abortion is "accepted" in the cases of rape/incest have to do with the Mother having no choice in the conception. From what I've heard lately, the big argument these days is on the acceptance of partial-birth abortions---where the babies skull is crushed on its way out of the womb. I would not support the Mothers right to commit infanticide. Then again, maybe I've only heard one side of the issue......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by JustinC, posted 03-14-2006 12:47 PM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 301 (295213)
03-14-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
03-14-2006 10:55 AM


quote:
The real issue is killing an innocent life in the name of convenience, like the Nazis and the Jews, but with the US Government's approval.
So how do you propose we punish women who get abortions (and the people who perform them) if they become illegal?
Should we convict them of murder and execute them?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-14-2006 11:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 10:55 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 2:59 PM nator has replied
 Message 15 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:00 PM nator has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4834 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 10 of 301 (295232)
03-14-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
03-14-2006 11:32 AM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
From what I've heard lately, the big argument these days is on the acceptance of partial-birth abortions---where the babies skull is crushed on its way out of the womb. I would not support the Mothers right to commit infanticide. Then again, maybe I've only heard one side of the issue......
"Partial Birth Abortion" isn't a medical term and isn't rigorously defined by those who use it. They define it as "any procedure where living fetal tissue passes through the birth canal, with a very narrow exception to save a woman's life." What is living fetal tissue?
The procedure they diagram is Dilation and Extraction (D&X). This is when forceps are used to pull the fetus's head out of the cervix. Then a hole is poked in the back of it and a vaccuum is used to suck out the brains.
It sounds horrible, but it must be recognized that this is only used in the third trimester and only in cases when the mother's life is in danger or when the baby has severe abnormalities.
The discrepency between the terminology pro-lifer's use, i.e., partial-birth abortion instead of D&X, is because they want to obfuscate the issue. They want to show you D&X and then have you outlaw what they call "partial birth abortion." Once this is done, the bill can be used to outlaw other procedures like Dilation and Extraction (D&E), a procedure used mainly in the second trimester when the fetus isn't viable.
I don't see why the method used would matter. Either the fetus has the rights of a human or it doesn't. When does it get this right? That is the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-14-2006 11:32 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 1:07 PM JustinC has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 301 (295235)
03-14-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Michael
03-12-2006 7:35 PM


I think you might mean "... abortion in the case of voluntary incest as well ..."
Oops. You're quite right, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Michael, posted 03-12-2006 7:35 PM Michael has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 301 (295238)
03-14-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JustinC
03-14-2006 12:47 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
Either the fetus has the rights of a human or it doesn't.
That's an interesting question, but even if a fetus gains all human rights at the moment of conception, I'm not familiar with any concept of human rights that mandates that any human being has a right to divert sustenance from the body and organs of another human being.
Over 50,000 people are sitting on the transplant lists, waiting for kidneys. And just about everybody has a spare one that they can live without. What's the difference between a putative right of a fetus to take residency in a woman's uterus and a dialysis patient's putative right to go around harvesting kidneys against the will of their donors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JustinC, posted 03-14-2006 12:47 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by JustinC, posted 03-14-2006 3:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 13 of 301 (295256)
03-14-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
03-14-2006 11:05 AM


All the more reason not to have them wouldn't you say?

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-14-2006 11:05 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-14-2006 4:46 PM Tal has not replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 14 of 301 (295259)
03-14-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
03-14-2006 11:54 AM


So how do you propose we punish women who get abortions (and the people who perform them) if they become illegal?
Should we convict them of murder and execute them?
That is up to the legislature to decide, but second degree murder sounds good. It is the sentence Scott Peterson recieved for killing his unborn son.
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. ” A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson to die by lethal injection Wednesday during a dramatic proceeding in which raw emotion poured from nearly every participant but the convicted double-murderer himself.
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:01 PM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 11:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 3:09 PM Tal has replied

Tal
Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 15 of 301 (295260)
03-14-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
03-14-2006 11:54 AM


double post :/
This message has been edited by Tal, 03-14-2006 03:00 PM

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 11:54 AM nator 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