Against abortion except in cases of rape

[LesMTS]

These people are worse than people who demand all abortion be illegal even in cases of rape. Yet those who voice the latter opinion are the ones who are considered hardliners. No. They're the ones with the courage of their convictions. They're the ones who have followed their reasoning through.

If your argument is that a foetus is a human life and taking human life is wrong then what relegates rape babies into the subhuman leagues?

[endless psych]

It presupposes the moral position that if you create a human life then you are responsible for it being preferable to being forced to create a human life I suppose. In that sense there would be a greater element of agency presribed to those that "choose" to get pregnant through their behaviour (IE promiscuity or irresponsible use of birth control) then there would be on those who were raped and thus fell pregnant without it being their choice.

[Runt]

Dunno. What if the argument is that abortion shouldn't be considered an acceptable alternative to contraception. That would put pregnancies resulted from rape in a different category wouldn't it.

and edit: aye, sort of what he said up there

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Runt

Dunno. What if the argument is that abortion shouldn't be considered an acceptable alternative to contraception. That would put pregnancies resulted from rape in a different category wouldn't it.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the argument that "life is life". Which trotted out an awful lot. I'm pro-choice but I agree that abortion isn't an acceptable alternative to casual contraception.
Kind of applies to the point above too.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Yeah, but I'm talking about the argument that "life is life". Which trotted out an awful lot.
Kind of applies to the point above too.

Aye, but the arguement for abortion in the cases of rape probably makes a moral distinction along the lines of which I posted above. As such the issue of life is life can't really be identified (logically or rationally at least working on the probably flawed assumption that humans beings are always rational or logical) as the main thrust of the arguement for or against. As such the arguement isn't life is life its more probably morally grounded in the percieved behaviour or activities of women preceding the abortion procedure.

Although its equally concievable that although life is life in both arguements in the case of rape abortions being allowed some sort of moral counterbalancing occurs whereby the expected distress or impact on a rape child or mother outweighs the notion of life is life. Either fundamentally or as a means of gathering further support for anti-abortion legislation and the like by appearing moderate.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Although its equally concievable that although life is life in both arguements in the case of rape abortions being allowed some sort of moral counterbalancing occurs whereby the expected distress or impact on a rape child or mother outweighs the notion of life is life. Either fundamentally or as a means of gathering further support for anti-abortion legislation and the like by appearing moderate.

This rules out the pro-life counter-argument to most pro-choice arguments though, no?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

This rules out the pro-life counter-argument to most pro-choice arguments though, no?

Depends if they are constructed along rational, logical lines which I suspect they aren't. If they are then I suspect congnitive dissonance is at work. I would need examples of the arguements to post something that makes more sense.

[Dario]

The comeback most often used by people against pro-lifers who say abortion is always wrong no matter what tends to be "what about rape victims?"- it's a very emotionally charged example of one such situation where the argument gets into an instantly noticeable grey area. I should think that people saying they're against abortion except when someone has been raped probably has more to do with avoiding getting hit with that question and drawn into that whole area of the argument. They can just talk about other circumstances involved while pushing that part of the subject to one side, so they don't risk losing their popularity with the crowd quite as much.

Originally Posted by endless psych

Although its equally concievable that although life is life in both arguements in the case of rape abortions being allowed some sort of moral counterbalancing occurs whereby the expected distress or impact on a rape child or mother outweighs the notion of life is life. Either fundamentally or as a means of gathering further support for anti-abortion legislation and the like by appearing moderate.

Yeah. That, essentially.

[erithromycin]

Consent in the act of creation, isn't it?

Sex is an act intended to produce pregnancy. When two people agree to have sex, each ought to be cognisant of (and implicitly consents to) the potential for pregnancy. Rape is a violent act. The intent of the 'except for rape' is, I think, to seperate sex, where both parties have the option to take actions that can prevent pregnancy (and therefore the need for abortion), and rape, where, due to the lack of consent, one party does not.

There was a case in 1992 link in Texas (naturally) where, after a woman persuaded her rapist to use a condom, he was initially acquitted because it implied consent. That he was subsequently convicted doesn't change the fact that in most circumstances, rape allows no means to prevent pregnancy.

[MarkMono]

Hear that folks, y'can only utilise your extremities for their intended purpose

[thetruemayhem]

Those that are against abortion except in cases of rape are just pandering to the emotional side of the pro-choice end. It's anti-abortion extremism lite™. It's like a nazi conceeding that he actually doesn't mind jews, just wants to slay 'the dragon' of islam and immigration (BNP notably take this stance in order to gain support from right-wing jews and their conservative-minded sympathisers).

At the end of the day, anyone who would deny a pregnant woman the choice to do with her body as she so wishes is, essentially, a fucking prick.

t.

[erithromycin]

Being able to explain an argument is not necessarily indicative of agreement.

The 'except for rape' isn't specious. It's hard to agree with, but it's either a cynical effort to move the debate to different ground or a desperate attempt to deal with rape and "murder" where they cross over. Horrible situations involving conflicting desires almost invariably produce difficult moral questions.

[thetruemayhem]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

Being able to explain an argument is not necessarily indicative of agreement.

I didn't say it was.

t.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by thetruemayhem

I didn't say it was.

t.

Hazard a guess but I don't think the comment was directed at you, much as I suspect the comment that prompted the reply wasn't particularly directed at Erithro. (Also what you said - was essentially what I said with less waffle)

Fundamental attribution error: fun for all the family.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

Consent in the act of creation, isn't it?

Sex is an act intended to produce pregnancy. When two people agree to have sex, each ought to be cognisant of (and implicitly consents to) the potential for pregnancy. Rape is a violent act. The intent of the 'except for rape' is, I think, to seperate sex, where both parties have the option to take actions that can prevent pregnancy (and therefore the need for abortion), and rape, where, due to the lack of consent, one party does not.

There was a case in 1992 link in Texas (naturally) where, after a woman persuaded her rapist to use a condom, he was initially acquitted because it implied consent. That he was subsequently convicted doesn't change the fact that in most circumstances, rape allows no means to prevent pregnancy.

yes, but if the argument is about, and rooted in, sanctity of life the pro-life except in cases of rape argument hits an impasse.