Abortion and Women's Rights

[DeistPaladin]

For me, and I assume for many others, this is a matter of idealism v. practicality. I don't think it's morally correct to abort in the case of rape, but I'm "OK" with making that concession if it would reduce abortion overall.

So you really believe that these fetuses (fetusi?) are living beings with souls, the same rights to life and everything but it's OK to kill them if the father was bad? As a matter of practicality, of course, eggs and omelettes and all that.

Just trying to clarify what you believe.

[John V]

You know exactly what I meant,

No, I don't. "OK with having a rape baby" is ambiguous.

Yes it is and what assumption?

That would be the part after "I'm assuming" above.

You literally said, you don't think it is morally correct to abort a rape baby.
I then asked you if you were raped, would you want to carry this rape baby around with you for nine months and then give birth to it?

No you asked if I, a man, were "OK with having a rape baby." Now you're clarifying that you want me to consider it as if I were a woman who had been raped. No, I would probably not want to carry the baby.

If your answer is no, then why should women have to?

First, I haven't argued that the woman should have to. just the opposite - I said I'd accept exceptions for rape.

Second, there are plenty of moral decisions that come with a price. For most people, morality isn't simply a matter of what I want.

---

So you really believe that these fetuses (fetusi?) are living beings with souls, the same rights to life and everything but it's OK to kill them if the father was bad?

First, being bad is not equivalent to having raped the mother.

Second, like Bad Wolf, you use the very ambiguous "OK." As I explained, I still find abortion to be morally incorrect in the case of rape. However, if a law limiting abortion was close to passing and the only hangup was that some people insisted on an exception for rape before supporting it, then I would accept that exception as a practical matter, as the law would decrease abortion.

[Bad Wolf]

No, I don't. "OK with having a rape baby" is ambiguous.

Please explain the multiple meanings of the phrase 'Are you OK with having a rape baby'

No you asked if I, a man, were "OK with having a rape baby."

At no point did I mention your gender. I just assumed that you would realise that I was talking about you if you were a woman, since women are the only ones who can get pregnant. Are being dull on purpose?

Second, there are plenty of moral decisions that come with a price. For most people, morality isn't simply a matter of what I want.

So, why is aborting a rape baby, not morally correct?

[John V]

So, why is aborting a rape baby, not morally correct?

Because I "believe the fetus is a living being with a right to life," as DP put it in the post to which I replied.

[Bad Wolf]

Because I "believe the fetus is a living being with a right to life," as DP put it in the post to which I replied.

But is this right to life more important than the womans bodily rights?
Which is more immoral? an abortion, or violating a persons bodily rights?

[John V]

But is this right to life more important than the womans bodily rights?
Which is more immoral? an abortion, or violating a persons bodily rights?

That's a matter of opinion. I'm addressing the hypocrisy issue. The fact that someone will compromise a position for practical gain doesn't necessarily mean that they don't really hold to their professed values, as was charged.

Let's look at it from the opposite side. Suppose there's a country in which all abortion is illegal. Some people claim they support abortion on demand, yet are trying to push through a law allowing abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life in danger. Does this indicate that they don't really support abortion on demand? I don't think so. I think they're being practical and trying to get what they can for the moment, even though they don't recognize it as ideal.

Same for the abortion opponent who would compromise on rape cases.

[DeistPaladin]

First, being bad is not equivalent to having raped the mother.

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

Second, like Bad Wolf, you use the very ambiguous "OK." As I explained, I still find abortion to be morally incorrect in the case of rape. However, if a law limiting abortion was close to passing and the only hangup was that some people insisted on an exception for rape before supporting it, then I would accept that exception as a practical matter, as the law would decrease abortion.

I get what you're saying. I just want you to fully own your line of reasoning. You really think that a fetus is a living, thinking, feeling being like you or I but some will just need to be thrown under the bus for the sake of the rest, right?

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? 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?

So basically, you're comfortable with both genocide and dishonesty as a matter of practicality because the ends will justify these means, right? You realize you're going to need to throw any pretense of believing in "absolute morals" out the window in order to be consistent with your statement that the ends justify the means, right?

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

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.

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.

[DeistPaladin]

Let's look at it from the opposite side. Suppose there's a country in which all abortion is illegal. Some people claim they support abortion on demand, yet are trying to push through a law allowing abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life in danger. Does this indicate that they don't really support abortion on demand? I don't think so. I think they're being practical and trying to get what they can for the moment, even though they don't recognize it as ideal.

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.

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.

[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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The pretext is exposed when a pro-lifer would "allow" abortion in the case of rape. Really? You really believe the fetus is a living being with a right to life that you and I have, but it's OK to suspend that right if the conception was during a rape? Isn't that punishing the child for the crimes of the father? You think that's OK?

For me, and I assume for many others, this is a matter of idealism v. practicality. I don't think it's morally correct to abort in the case of rape, but I'm "OK" with making that concession if it would reduce abortion overall.

You know what would reduce abortions overall?

Sex ed! Using fucking condoms, because you were told why you needed to use them!

Who have the most abortions? Fucking religious people!

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16950

Religious people who are fucking, but not using condoms, because they think it's either "a sin," or you don't feel like educating your children on the basic biology, and prevent the school system from doing it as well.

You want to reduce abortions?

Educate your kids. It doesn't matter how you feel about it, they're going to have sex, and if they're women, they're going to have a lot of sex, roughly double the sex your average male child will have.

Stop being so fucking religious. That would lower abortions by 87%.