If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance.
I see. Right-wingers think that paying even reasonable taxes is 'slavery', but somehow, a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine, and the government should force you to carry it to term.
Do you and the rest of your ilk have a political death wish?
The child didn't do anything wrong
Completely irrelevant. If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
I agree that abortion bans are in principle legitimate, since people voluntarily choose the risk of pregnancy when they engage in sex. That is in no way applicable to people who were the victims of such a crime, and they certainly shouldn't be made to suffer more based on some douchebag's cockamamie belief that a fertilized egg is a 'baby'.
(Don't take this personally, you phrased your belief in the least obnoxious way possible, but it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral.)
Being willing to make an exception for rape undermines the "abortion is murder" position.
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
After that concession, it becomes a matter of degrees and it will just creep towards more expansive.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
It's a question that has to be faced head-on instead of deferring to other examples. For every analogy one way, there's an analogy the other. If someone breaks into your home and leaves an infant in your living room, you're not allowed to stomp it. "BUT IT WAS TRESSPASSING!"
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
I'd go a doctor and go "hey, remove this guy without killing him."
It's not possible.
If someone is going to plant their flag on "fetuses are defenseless, innocent human life and it's immoral to kill them" you can't turn around and go "unless it makes someone upset" and expect anyone to take your moral stance seriously.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
Banning abortion, even in the case of rape, is equivalent to a "duty to retreat." In those jurisdictions, you must are required inconvenience yourself for the benefit of an attacker. And that's the person actively violating you. Not a third party who is there through no fault of their own.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
What's fascinating is the "castle doctrine" property jurisdictions are the ones that tend towards "duty to retreat" abortion and vice-versa.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no. The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
But let's make it more apt to the situation
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life".
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
force you to carry it to term
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
Call me crazy then. I will give you this: If you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality. Both wrong but of different degrees. Likewise telling your fictionally attached rider "Sorry man, I'm going to go through with the surgery and have you removed. You understand. We can't live this way. Maybe by some miracle you will survive." is entirely different than shooting him in the head so he'll stop annoying you.
I strongly object to equating "letting people die" with "killing people", which is a common line of reasoning used to justify vaccinations in non-risk populations. Agency vs. natural outcomes.
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
Right, but you'll still use the power of the state to make sure the rapist's DNA is in no way gotten rid of by the victim.
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
My argument is that even if you consider it a 'person', it's OK to believe that a rape victim - who in no way consented to this - is entitled to remove what she did not ask for.
you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality.
The same way inflicting a painless death is 'less bad' than torturing someone to death.
a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
the government should force you to carry it to term.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral
The precept that every human life has value is a principled moral stance.
Defining the value of a human life based on the desires of another is amoral.
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
And yet also force the victim to keep the rapist's DNA.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
Don't kid yourself - the government exists to protect the powerful and fortuned, at the expense of the powerless. That's why they are powerless. Nonetheless, what you propose here is to use the government to further oppress the powerless. Who is worse off and more powerless than a rape victim?
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
How exactly does being rape victim relate to 'debauchery'?
I see. Right-wingers think that paying even reasonable taxes is 'slavery', but somehow, a complete stranger forcing his DNA into you is perfectly fine, and the government should force you to carry it to term.
Do you and the rest of your ilk have a political death wish?
Completely irrelevant. If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him, does that mean that you cannot remove him? No, this is crazy talk.
I agree that abortion bans are in principle legitimate, since people voluntarily choose the risk of pregnancy when they engage in sex. That is in no way applicable to people who were the victims of such a crime, and they certainly shouldn't be made to suffer more based on some douchebag's cockamamie belief that a fertilized egg is a 'baby'.
(Don't take this personally, you phrased your belief in the least obnoxious way possible, but it's quite infuriating that the right insists on losing and not even because of something that's moral, for something that's immoral.)
I don't think so. Many who believe that abortion is murder also believe that rape exceptions should be allowed. Maybe they cannot provide support for their moral intuitions, but I think it's perfectly defensible, as my example showed.
If someone attached you to me without my permission, and told me that you'd die if you weren't, with due respect, but I'll be grabbing the scissors.
It's the other way around. You will not be able to get any abortion ban if you do not allow for this exception.
I think it's a very bad example, and mine was much more apt. That infant has not attached itself to me, nor do I have to suffer through it for months on end. I can just call the police and have it be removed, and much quicker than a woman can have an abortion too.
It's not possible.
Sure you can. It's a conflict of rights. You have no right to conscript someone else's body for your embryo or fertilized egg, same as with the surgery example - which also does not suggest that 'murder' in some cases is OK.
You have no duty to retreat for 9 months though, nor is it nearly as invasive.
I never thought the respective ideologies made much sense. You could base it on tradition: abortion has been traditionally disallowed, and traditionally your home is your castle.
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no. The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
What exactly is the standard here? Why is 'a few months' OK, but permanently is not? What about a few years? Where do you draw the line?
You can make the request of the victim of the situation, and if he is of good will he may even oblige, but you cannot force him morally - because you have no right to deprive him of his liberty.
Now, if you had been at fault in some way for the situation, it's a different matter.
That's an excellent comparison. But let's make it more apt to the situation. There is one kid stuck in a well, and a fertilized egg or embryo. The only way you can save the 'fertilized' egg is by inflicting months of misery on the other kid, misery that he didn't ask for.
I'll choose to save the kid.
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me, when I didn't ask for it?
You said that "several months" is OK but nothing further. Is 10 years OK?
It's clearly a 'life'. I'm annoyed with other pro-choicers who make dishonest arguments like claiming that the embryo or fetus is "part of the woman's body". But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons, let alone such horrendous acts as imposing further misery and trauma on a victim of rape.
Nor did I intend to. By calling it 'murder' you prejudge the issue. I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'. Of course, if I ask for it, it's a different situation.
The argument against abortion in case of rape has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the rapist. He will still be punished or not all the same.
Already covered in another reply but abortion for me is a question of when the fetus goes from an "it" to a "person". It is a gradient, but at some point along that process, we have to decide you cannot kill the person for any reason.
Call me crazy then. I will give you this: If you can gently remove a fetus from a womb and then they simply die from lack of sustenance, that is a different act than cutting them to pieces and vacuuming the body parts from the womb, in terms of morality. Both wrong but of different degrees. Likewise telling your fictionally attached rider "Sorry man, I'm going to go through with the surgery and have you removed. You understand. We can't live this way. Maybe by some miracle you will survive." is entirely different than shooting him in the head so he'll stop annoying you.
I strongly object to equating "letting people die" with "killing people", which is a common line of reasoning used to justify vaccinations in non-risk populations. Agency vs. natural outcomes.
Right, but you'll still use the power of the state to make sure the rapist's DNA is in no way gotten rid of by the victim.
My argument is that even if you consider it a 'person', it's OK to believe that a rape victim - who in no way consented to this - is entitled to remove what she did not ask for.
The same way inflicting a painless death is 'less bad' than torturing someone to death.
No, we're all quite in favor of punishing men and women for rape.
If the government cannot attempt to protect the wholly defenseless, what moral purpose does it serve? The convenience of those who have survived to adulthood?
The precept that every human life has value is a principled moral stance.
Defining the value of a human life based on the desires of another is amoral.
Celebrating the taking of human life to engage in further debauchery unhindered is immoral.
Hopefully this clears things up for you.
And yet also force the victim to keep the rapist's DNA.
Don't kid yourself - the government exists to protect the powerful and fortuned, at the expense of the powerless. That's why they are powerless. Nonetheless, what you propose here is to use the government to further oppress the powerless. Who is worse off and more powerless than a rape victim?
How exactly does being rape victim relate to 'debauchery'?
The other victim - the one you want to kill.