Abortion and Women's Rights

[John V]

I consider that to be bad but maybe you want to use a different word.

IMO rape is necessarily bad, but bad is not necessarily rape. I don't know if you're just being sloppy or flippant, or are trying to expand the issue from rape to simply "bad" fathers.

Evil? Sadistic? Sociopathic? We could use all these words but it's beside the point. My point is to ask if you think it's OK to kill the children of rapists as a matter of expediency? Some must be sacrificed for the greater good and all?

Again with the "OK." I've made my position very clear. Why do you keep repeating the question?

I get what you're saying. I just want you to fully own your line of reasoning.

I have, more than once. You just don't seem to like that I have a reasonable answer.

You really think that a fetus is a living, thinking, feeling being like you or I

I never said that. I don't know that I'd classify a fetus as "thinking." I doubt that I'd classify an infant as "thinking" either.

but some will just need to be thrown under the bus for the sake of the rest, right?

Aside from your phrasing it as an appeal to emotion, yes, that's right. Before the law is passed, anyone, including those raped, can get an abortion. After the law is passed, only those raped (ideally) can get an abortion. I'd say it's better to save 9 lives and let one die, than to let all 10 die under the bus of idealism.

Ultimately, your objective will be to ban all abortion, including in the case of rape, right? This allowance is just a mask to make your political agenda more palatable to moderates, right?

Right.

If you were really honest, you'd say, "we'll allow abortion for rape for now but we'll revisit banning that too at a later time." But a little dishonesty is needed as a means to an end, right?

I'm being completely open about my position.

So basically, you're comfortable with both genocide

Reducing deaths is not genocide.

and dishonesty

As noted, I'm not hiding anything.

Speaking of dishonesty, what do you think of someone who spins a large reduction in deaths as being genocide?

Just looking to understand your thinking here and make sure you're comfortable with all it entails.

Quite comfortable. I know the appeal to emotion fallacy when I see it.

Let's say you achieve your objective. Abortion is banned except for cases of rape. Congratulations on your political victory. Now how does this work? How do you determine if the fetus really was conceived in a rape?

Do you take the mother's word for it? Now all women seeking abortion can simply say they were raped to make use of the loophole.

Yes, if all women are liars, but I have more respect for them. Some might lie, but many won't, therefore reducing the number of abortions (which is a genocide in your thinking).

Perhaps we'd need evidence of some kind? What evidence should she produce to prove she was raped?

Do we wait for an arrest of the perp? Should we wait for it to go to trial? Maybe we need a conviction first? What if the convicted rapist appeals? Should we wait until that trial is over and the conviction upheld? Keep in mid the clock is ticking and we only have so long to wait before viability.

Maybe you have thought about this. I'm just curious about your thinking here.

No, as the law was basically settled in the US decades ago, I don't waste time thinking through the details of something that will never come to be. As noted above, just taking the mother's word would achieve some reduction in deaths and so would be a step in the right direction.

---

Such political dilemmas do happen on the left. Recently a speaker who was an advocate for LGBT rights spoke on the issue of whether or not to push for transgender rights along with gay and bisexual rights. Dropping transgenders makes the passage of gay rights legislation easier but it effectively throws transgenders under the bus, in a place where they'll never crawl of of, at least for the foreseeable. The theory is that they are such a minority that if they are dropped, no one will take up advocacy for them later, at least not for the foreseeable future.

The decision was made to push for the whole deal. All and immediate, no compromises. It's really the only moral course of action if you really do believe in the cause.

So, in your own terminology, a moral person would throw raped women, and those whose life is in danger, under the bus and force them to continue their pregnancies.

This is not to say that I don't see the point of "practicality". I'm just saying that to embrace that course of action means that you have to be comfortable with "the ends justify the means", at least on some extreme occasions. If you do get comfortable, you must abandon an pretense in advocating for absolute morals in order to be consistent.

It seems that at least once a week I need to point out to people that I don't believe that there are absolute morals.