"...except in the case of rape or incest."

Well, I’m not sure that I really know but I'll lend a helping hand. My first thoughts are that this is the source of your misunderstanding. I think you are looking deeper into what these people are saying than they are themselves. I think when they say rape and incest they mean rape and involuntary incest and are just being redundant.But if they aren’t . It probably comes from a double standard. The pro-lifers consider incest to be despicable and sinful. This coupled with the increase in the chance for genetic complications lets them rationalize their double standard. I think they are considering the ”dirty conception’ above the genetic undesirability. The genetic undesirability is just the icing on the cake, so to speak. The difference is that incest is known to increase the chance of a genetic problem. If other behaviors were found to cause problems, I think they would be abhorred as well. Like having sex on the nuclear reactor or something . Like I said at the top, this is most likely the case.

I look at it not that it is OK to kill them, but it is less bad (better) than forcing a girl who was forcefully impregnated to give birth. It is lesser of two evils, not that it becomes OK.

word.

I disagree, why do you think that?You shouldn't put yourself in a position where the outcome could be out of the reach of your responsibility.If the outcome occurs, then you should take responsibility for the position you put yourself in. The people who are morally opposed to your method of taking responsibility, and prevent you from doing it, shouldn't have to take on your failed responsibility if you knew that your method wasn't approved of in the first place.

If someone has an unwanted pregnancy, and then abortion is made illegal then they should be relieved of their responsibility. But, if abortion is illegal and then some has an unwanted pregnancy, they should take responsibility for their actions. The people who supported that criminalization of abortion should not be resonsible for somebody elses mistake.ABE: I read the message you replied to and see how I worded it poorly when I used morally opposed and not approved in the same sentence when I meant different things. And by 'method' I meant abortion. Just becuase abortion is morally opposed to isn't the reason I think the responsibility is on the aborter. The reason is if it is illegal, then the unwanted pregnancey should be avoided more, and more resonsibility is behind having sex. Who cares about other peoples immorals if they're not legal. I don't like that concept. You shouldn't let someone die because you don't want to be responsible for them. I don't get it. When I said the method wasn't approved, I meant that it was illegal.We shouldn't get off topic and talk about the war but I don't see how disapproving of it makes you more responsible for the soldiers nor how I am responsible for them in the first place.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-15-2006 03:09 PM

Yeah, that was my fault, I editted message 96 after reading your reply, and then reading my message, I saw how poorly I worded it. Maybe if you re-read it my point will be clearer and you can reply to that. That whole quote is support for why abortion is bad. Especially if you consider a fetus a person, at the least. I guess I could see how you're using it to support taking care of someone elses kid because abortion is illegal. But seriously, don't get all Jesusy on me just because I'm Catholic. Its not like you believe any of that stuff anyway. How do you go about taking responsibility for your soldiers?

waa-waa, boohoo.you have to follow it if its the law.

yeah...sorry. Thats not true...I'm no good.Anyways, we were discussing something and now we're not. Here's where we were: What would you have typed if I didn't word it so poorly the first time?

If abortion is illegal then there is more responsibility to having sex. Assuming she is pregnant and then the choice is removed, I agree.If the choice isn’t there before she is pregnant (if abortion is illegal), I don’t think it becomes the responsibility of another, non-father, citizen when she does become pregnant (because we live in a democracy and everyone is responsible for the results of the laws). She knew abortion was illegal when she decided to have sex and she should be prepared for the consequences of her actions. OK, but if it is illegal to throw a couch in the garbage, then you should be more careful when shopping for a couch knowing you won’t be able to throw it out.

I replied to the OP is Message 62. Crashfrog didn’t respond probably because he didn’t see it and sometimes when you have unanswered messages later in the thread, you don’t get the “Replies Await” notice to messages earlier in the thread.

Did you see Message 62?

But you get pregnant as a result of the choices you make, when you say 'against your will' it sounds like it just happens out of nowhere.

Again, only if the law is made after you've already bought a couch(i.e are pregnant). If you don't have a couch before the law is made, then it is your responsibility, knowing that you can't throw the couch away, to be careful when shopping for a couch. And if you accendentally buy a couch, it was your responsibility to not put yourself in a position where you were unable to avoid buying the couch (don't go to the couch store if you can't resist buying one) because your not allowed to throw it away if you do buy it. No, you say "Don't buy a couch if you can't keep it." You have to be more careful about having sex if abortion isn't an option. And if abortion isn't an option then it is not the other citizen's responsibility if you aren't careful about having sex. Key word: unreasonable. It is a matter of opinion if abortion is reasonable or not.

I guess we just disagree on how much responsibility should be placed on the individual versus how much should be placed on the government. Its not very ludicrous in my opinion. And I don't think that some provision must be made if abortion is outlawed."Don't get pregnant" is easier to say than to do, but I think too much responsibility is removed from the individual if the government becomes responsible after it outlaws abortion. I hope you don't get mad when you read this, but:I think abortion should be legal.I think it is a bad thing to do but because we can't define when a fetus is a person and I'm only opposed to it for moral reasons, I think the option should be available to people who have no problem with it.What I don't agree with is that if abortion becomes considered unreasonable enough to be made illegal, then the govenment, or other citizens, should have to take on the responsibility of the unwanted children. (i know its not a christian attitude, btw) Yes because you weren't responsible for getting the couch (i.e. you were raped).That is why I agree that if abortion is made illegal, the phrase "except in the case of rape or incest." should be included. I strike the incest part because, like the OP said, it is redundent if talking about involuntary incest and I don't think that abortion, if illegal, should be allowed for voluntary incest.P.S. I gotta go, this is my last post for today.

This seems contradictory. If there is no moral right to tell the mother what to do then why is there a moral right to tell me what do if abortion is illegal. Conversely, if there is moral right to tell me what to do if abortion is illegal, then why is there no moral right to tell the mother that she cannot have an abortion (if the fetus is considered a person). Not to mention that:

quote:

---

We do have a moral resposibility, as a society, to take care of our weaker members

---

is an opinion and could just as easily be used to support a ban on abortion if a fetus is considered a member of society. To me it does matter how she got pregnant. It determines where the responsibility is placed, whether or not her pregnancy was a result of her irresponsibility or someone else’s (in the case of rape).