Rape should be covered under 'life of the mother'.
If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance. If she's not capable of that (e.g. she's going to engage in some form of self-harm), the infant is doomed anyways.
A blanket exception for rape is no different than killing a woman's ex-husband because she feels sad when she sees him happy with someone else after she cheated on him and he left. The child didn't do anything wrong, and doesn't deserve to be killed for the sins of another.
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.)
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.
Rape should be covered under 'life of the mother'.
If she's psychologically capable of carrying to term, then that infant hasn't done anything wrong and deserves a chance. If she's not capable of that (e.g. she's going to engage in some form of self-harm), the infant is doomed anyways.
A blanket exception for rape is no different than killing a woman's ex-husband because she feels sad when she sees him happy with someone else after she cheated on him and he left. The child didn't do anything wrong, and doesn't deserve to be killed for the sins of another.
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.)
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.