Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
I care about rape victims and hope they deal with their trauma in the best way they see fit, but abortion isn't justified because the mother got raped. They're two seperate issues, totally unrelated from one another. As for people who try to prevent conceiving during sex, that's all well-and-good, but conception is always a possibility during sexual intercourse. When you have sex, you consent to the possibility of pregnancy (different from consenting to pregnancy). The responsibility falls on the two partners to carry out the pregnancy to full-term, and then they're free to put the baby up for adoption.
Forcing a rape victim to give birth to the child of the man who raped her IS justified?
I doubt you're going to admit this, but it's definitely implied here.
I don't think it's fair to compartmenalize abortion to this degree, the laws will impact pairs of mothers and potential children. Not some abstract concept 'fetus' and another, totally unrelated abstract concept 'mother'.
Adoption does not give the same quality of life as a child with two loving parents. Sadness all around. Troubled child, traumatised couple, a society with an orphanage shortage.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
My apologies, yes I meant gov.uk. I should have sourced more clearly as you've mistaken my sourcing for the former point regarding the 99%. I was actually referring to the 40%.
Then why mention the stat at all?
As for the 40%, it does come off as concerning. But I don't think it's enough of a reason to deny abortions to all those who do need it.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
It's not necessary.
In your opinion
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Incorrect. The law against murder is there to reduce murder. The abortion law wouldn't be there to reduce harm, but reduce abortions. The utilitarian answer to abortion isn't something I'm invested in.
Reducing murder is reducing harm
I'm curious, what rules inform your deontologist argument against abortion?
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Of course, it makes it easier to take that position when you slap on "unthinking" and "unwanting" before it. Does an unthinking human adult have no value? What about a child who is unwanted? Do they have zero value as well? I don't think desire and the capacity for thought are logical or reasonable ways of measuring one's value as an objectively, existing human life.
I don't know what value has to do with this, but braindead adults are cut off from life support all the time. Of course an unwanted child has value, but I don't want a child to struggle with major feelings of unwantedness throughout their childhood, when that easily could have been prevented.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
I would have thought that the fact that the human life is incapable of giving consent to such an enormous decision concerning whether they should live or not is exactly why we should not be able to make such a decision? You couldn't possibly know what they want, since many babies conceived in the most awful and tragic of conditions go on to live happy, fulfilling lives. It's common to see pro-life people who were conceived in rape state that they're thankful that their mother didn't abort them.
You can turn that argument all the way around. Making abortion illegal presumes that fetuses want to live, you couldn't possibly know that. Also I believe that people born into tragic circumstances living happy lives are the exception, not the rule. The people that were 'abortion candidates' (sorry for the dehumanizing term, can't think of another way to refer to them) are adults now and (presumably) have a natural instinct to want to be alive. They have a personal bias.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Since you're pro-choice, what law do you believe is correct? Where do you personally draw the line? At 4 weeks?
Haven't given much thought to exactly which legalese I prefer, but 4 weeks seemed reasonable at first. Apparently most women find out they are pregnant 5.5 weeks in though, so it probably isn't so reasonable. Maybe the law should be paired with increased access to pregnancy tests at lower costs, and general sex education.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
I'm for the death penalty as much as I'm for our participation in the Second World War. Would you describe adherents of the US' participation in WW2 as "okay" with the taking of innocent life? No, you wouldn't, because there's a difference between acknowledging that a noble goal could end up with innocent deaths and being for a procedure that is intentionally designed to end innocent life.
As said in the other thread, I don't think they are analogous.