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.
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.