Is there any circumstance for abortion that is not rooted in selfishness? I can think of only one.

Rape, situations where the baby will have some sort of genetic issue and lead a very short and very pain filled life?

I'm old enough to remember when the mantra was "safe, legal, and rare".

It's been more than a hot minute since they were "rare".

Both of the situations I listed are rare. This does not mean they do not happen. Not taking into consideration rare circumstances is in my opinion a mistake. If I was one of those women this would probably cause me to never vote for or support the GOP ever again.

It’s going to be interesting to see the impact this has on residents in OBGYN programs in Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
Both of the situations I listed are rare. This does not mean they do not happen. Not taking into consideration rare circumstances is in my opinion a mistake. If I was one of those women this would probably cause me to never vote for or support the GOP ever again.

Hmmm, how do you imagine you would vote if you were the healthy baby in that rare circumstance?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Most (not all) of the posts in this thread seem to assume that the woman is a willing participant in sex.

That is not always the case.

A very typical puerile and wholly dishonest argument that completely ignores the life of the baby as if he or she were nothing but a disease to be cured if the mother decides so.

Frankly, whether the baby is the result of rape or not is irrelevant to the fact that that baby is a human being. I understand why abortionists conveniently ignore that truth, but that doesn't make it any less so. And it certainly doesn't make the act of murdering a baby any less reprehensible or wrong whatever the circumstances.

How many pregnancies are the result of rape? It would seem to me that it is a very, very small percentage of them. And in that case you would punish the child for the sins of his father. Not a great argument if you ask me.

I stated that the woman is no always a willing participant in sex. I did not intend to make this statement in support of abortion; my intention was to refute the assertions in this thread that pregnancy can be avoided. Two different things. If a woman is not a willing participant, she has little control over whether or not pregnancy will result.

It’s a shit situation either way Balzé. Forcing a woman who was raped to give birth is great for the baby I suppose. It’s not so great for the woman.

quote:

Originally posted by alptraum:
The general felling here seems to be that women are breeding vessels.

Flunked biology, did ya?

quote:

If they're pregnant they can no longer make informed decisions for themselves regarding their own body while in that state, regardless of how they arrived in that condition.

That's not what I said. Go back and read it again. The key phrase: absolute autonomy .

It's rather interesting- when I used that phrase, I was not aware it was employed by others in the context of the subject at hand, but I should have known. I plugged the phrase into a search engine. Take a look. This covers the point I was making, which is distinct from what you think I meant in my post:

Absolute Bodily Autonomy

Once in a while a pro-abortion argument comes along that can be vexing. One such argument was recently posted on our facebook page, and it deserves a thoughtful and thorough response. To paraphrase, the visitor to our page claimed that women have absolute autonomy over their bodies, and that because we cannot be legally forced to donate blood or an organ to someone - even it means that person will die - a woman cannot be forced to donate her uterus so that her fetus may live. This argument, which is a variant on Judith Jarvis Thomson’s infamous “violinist argument” that can be found on-line, seems persuasive because it contains an element of truth: we cannot be legally forced to donate our organs to save the life of someone else.

Though the argument may be convincing to some, it ultimately fails on several fronts. First, we simply do not have absolute autonomy over our bodies. The law prohibits us from making many dozens of choices with our bodies. Drug use, prostitution, public nudity, even seatbelt and helmet laws constitute prohibitions on what we can do with our own bodies. The law is justified in restricting our “bodily autonomy” when it comes to choices that harm others, or the common good. Abortion is one such choice. It kills another human being, namely one’s own child, and harms society in a myriad of ways.

Second, the argument fails to acknowledge that parents are legally required to provide basic care for their children. Men who don’t want to be fathers are nonetheless legally compelled to pay child support for 19 years (at least). Parents can be charged with neglect or abuse if they do not provide their children the basic necessities of life. It does not follow they be relieved of their obligations just because their child is in the womb and not in the crib. Pregnancy is a completely natural process that co-creates, nurtures and sustains every person for the first 9 months of life. Almost everyone agrees it is morally correct for a parent to provide extraordinary care, including organ donation, to save the life of his or her child.

Third, the act of donating an organ is not analogous to pregnancy. Organ donation is an extraordinary, heroic act that involves removing a body part that exists for you to function. Your kidney, liver, heart, and other organs are all designed to sustain you, not someone else. The uterus, on the other hand, seems to have no other function than to house and sustain a pre- born child. That is its natural purpose for existing. During pregnancy, it isn’t being removed and donated to someone else in the way your kidney is, it is simply functioning as it is intended to.

Finally, refusing to donate an organ to someone who needs it is not the same as intentionally destroying your unborn child with abortion. Our obligation to our children is greater than it is to strangers. In the case of the stranger’s death, the cause of death is his own failed organ or disease, whereas in the case of abortion, the cause of death is a direct and intentional act of destruction.

The argument for bodily autonomy fails because parents have an obligation to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. This obligation should not be removed from them just because of where their child is. If anything, the child’s heightened level of dependency demands an even greater degree of protection and care.



Now, if you want to believe that all who support this position are knuckle-dragging neanderthals, be my guest, but your interpretation of my post is not quite correct.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I stated that the woman is no always a willing participant in sex. I did not intend to make this statement in support of abortion; my intention was to refute the assertions in this thread that pregnancy can be avoided. Two different things. If a woman is not a willing participant, she has little control over whether or not pregnancy will result.

Well that's certainly true. And also, saying that women can use birth control as a means to avoid getting pregnant in case of rape is just absurd. So yes, it is not fair to say in all cases that a woman can avoid getting pregnant.

Of course, once she is pregnant, I don't believe that since the pregnancy was the result of rape that the baby is somehow less a human being than a baby conceived outside of rape.

By the way, my post was not specifically directed at you.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
It’s a shit situation either way Balzé. Forcing a woman who was raped to give birth is great for the baby I suppose. It’s not so great for the woman.

Seems to me that makes for an easy choice. I say that as a father who would die for his daughters without hesitation, so take it for what its worth.

Rape and Incest are 'false flag arguments here....There's this thing called the 'Morning After' pill. Adoption is another alternative to murdering an Innocent Unborn Child.

The Texas law will probably be contested on the basis that long standing legal precedent does not define the presence of a heartbeat as "life". If that were true there would be no heart transplants. The legal standard applied to people who have already been born is brain activity. We are all familiar with that concept of "brain death" or the cessation of the higher brain functions associated with sentient human thought. It does not matter if your brain stem still functions enough to keep your body "living".

Following the existing precedent, the time limit for an abortion should coincide with the existence of the higher brain functions that are deemed to be "life".

IMO, this is the only logical conclusion to the debate. The brilliance of the Texas law is that the challenge "but life isn't defined by a heartbeat!" will be met with the response "then when does it begin?" potentially forcing the admission by the left that life is defined by brain function and that there is no way around it.

Personally, I am on favor of eliminating abortion as a means of birth control. There are plenty of methods that are very effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy. I think we can all agree that if a pregnancy is a danger to the mother’s life that abortion is also a valid option. When I have this discussion with friends on both sides of the argument, the area of most consternation is the debate over abortion for victims of rape or incest.

My opinion on that topic is formed from almost 18 years in law enforcement, and my opinion is that rape can be worse than murder. That might seem off to a lot of people, but I’ve interacted with a number of rape victims and I stand by that assessment. I will also add that an alarming number of rape victims end up committing suicide. I truly believe, as someone who believes in God and that there is more to our existence than what we currently know and experience, that a premature death can be less painful and less of a torment than the lifetime of suffering that some rape victims endure. I can’t imagine the horror of compounding that pain with going through pregnancy and bringing the progeny of such an evil man into the world, at least for some cases.

In reality, while I would support legislation (and the required constitutional amendment under current law) that outlaws abortions that take place merely as a matter of convenience, I would not personally be able to support legislation that denies victims of rape or incest access to abortion. I also think that in reality, such a law would eliminate the vast majority of needless abortions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
The Texas law will probably be contested on the basis that long standing legal precedent does not define the presence of a heartbeat as "life". If that were true there would be no heart transplants. The legal standard applied to people who have already been born is brain activity. We are all familiar with that concept of "brain death" or the cessation of the higher brain functions associated with sentient human thought. It does not matter if your brain stem still functions enough to keep your body "living".

Following the existing precedent, the time limit for an abortion should coincide with the existence of the higher brain functions that are deemed to be "life".

That's simply nonsense. If a patient in a hospital on day 1 has no detectable brain activity, yet there is about 100% certainty that left on his own that same patient will have normal brain activity in a few months, what would you say about a doctor who pulled the plug on day 1? I don't know about you, but I'd call that murder.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Rape and Incest are 'false flag arguments here....There's this thing called the 'Morning After' pill. Adoption is another alternative to murdering an Innocent Unborn Child.

The morning after pill is an abortion pill, so that is still allowing abortion early in the pregnancy.

An exception for rape and incest with respect to the time limit in Texas could result in false accusations of rape against the alleged father in order to get the abortion. Always consider the moral hazard that might occur.

The sickening thing is the resurfacing of arguments based on eugenics - the "need" to abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome or other birth defects as posted earlier. It is a slippery slope that has led to sterilization and execution of "defective" humans more than once in the past. And as far as we know it is still happening in China, with respect to mental illness. Commies like AOC are already calling for "population control", due to "limited resources" which are usually caused by government regulations, not real limits.

In China, many girls were aborted during the one child policy period from 1978-2018, so much so that the government banned parents from knowing the sex of an unborn child to avoid a population imbalance. The imbalance is a lot worse then they admit - cities are off a few percent but out in the sticks it's a lot worse from what I have been told.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
The Texas law will probably be contested on the basis that long standing legal precedent does not define the presence of a heartbeat as "life". If that were true there would be no heart transplants. The legal standard applied to people who have already been born is brain activity. We are all familiar with that concept of "brain death" or the cessation of the higher brain functions associated with sentient human thought. It does not matter if your brain stem still functions enough to keep your body "living".

Following the existing precedent, the time limit for an abortion should coincide with the existence of the higher brain functions that are deemed to be "life".

That's simply nonsense. If a patient in a hospital on day 1 has no detectable brain activity, yet there is about 100% certainty that left on his own that same patient will have normal brain activity in a few months, what would you say about a doctor who pulled the plug on day 1? I don't know about you, but I'd call that murder.

It is no more nonsense than using the standard of a beating heart vs. the moment of conception. But there IS legal precedent for life to be defined by brain activity and using it here is more appropriate than using a heartbeat.

The reality is everyone is going to have to compromise. SCOTUS will not overturn R v. W and allow states to go back to complete bans, and the majority of Americans would agree that aborting an embryo is not murder. Hell, you can fertilize embryos and freeze them for the future so that you can use them or dispose of them at a later date.

The only issue to discuss is what point in the development of a fetus defines the time limit. I disagree with using heartbeat as the criteria, and I do think the 6 week time limit is too short - women miss periods for all kinds of reasons and giving them two weeks after the first miss will not be considered reasonable.

Something simple - like 1st trimester is OK, and after that only when absolutely medically necessary would be another option.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Rape and Incest are 'false flag arguments here....There's this thing called the 'Morning After' pill. Adoption is another alternative to murdering an Innocent Unborn Child.

The morning after pill is an abortion pill, so that is still allowing abortion early in the pregnancy.

An exception for rape and incest with respect to the time limit in Texas could result in false accusations of rape against the alleged father in order to get the abortion. Always consider the moral hazard that might occur.

The sickening thing is the resurfacing of arguments based on eugenics - the "need" to abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome or other birth defects as posted earlier. It is a slippery slope that has led to sterilization and execution of "defective" humans more than once in the past. And as far as we know it is still happening in China, with respect to mental illness. Commies like AOC are already calling for "population control", due to "limited resources" which are usually caused by government regulations, not real limits.

In China, many girls were aborted during the one child policy period from 1978-2018, so much so that the government banned parents from knowing the sex of an unborn child to avoid a population imbalance. The imbalance is a lot worse then they admit - cities are off a few percent but out in the sticks it's a lot worse from what I have been told.

You are correct, the Morning After Pill is an Abortion pill, and yes, it does end life. That said, my comment was REALLY in response to the discussion by some in this thread, where it's been argued that the Texas Law, which essentially prohibits Abortion after a Heartbeat (6 weeks), leaves 'NO Option' for victims of rape and incest.

Victims of rape and incest Know Damn Well if they're victims of rape and incest....They certainly don't need more that 6 days, let alone 6 weeks to figure it out! If we're talking about minors, or even adult women unwilling/hesitant to come forward due to fear, shame, etc, well there are other/Pro-Abortion states besides Texas where one can get an Abortion!

And for the record, I am wholeheartedly Pro-Life!

The morning after pill only prevents ovulation. No egg released, no chance of pregnancy. If the egg has already been released, the morning after pill is not effective and the chance of pregnancy is still possible. It is not an abortion pill.

^^^The Mayo Clinic has a different opinion...

"Plan B One-Step is a type of morning-after pill that can be used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...l/about/pac-20394730

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that birth control pills were an option following rape. I was merely wondering if they prevented pregnancy under those circumstances. Many women are taking those pills on a regular basis, anyway.

flashguy

My answer to women who proclaim "My body-my decision", (and I say this with utmost love and respect to my beloved granddaughters) where were you in the 1960's when Uncle Sam was proclaiming me as draft-eligible and ready for 'Nam? No where in my female college classmates were there supportive marches proclaiming "His Body - His Decision".

My personal belief is that removing the possibility of thousands of unfit mothers birthing babies is infinitely better for society - it just seems like we could choose behavior control or scientific methods to achieve that goal as opposed to abortion.

If abortion remains a choice, the question will be whether society ultimately benefits from the cleansing of the "Mother Pool" or does the un-emotional disrespect for a human life pollute our societal consciousness to our detriment. I suspect it will be years before we truly know the answer.