Human Rights

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Darn it, I forgot to include something again.


O.K. The original intention I had (reflected by the first paragraph) was to demonstrate that the idea of a woman who was raped being under greater torture of pregnancy wasn't something actually practiced by women (around 1980) who were raped. It is some outside idea that people push onto raped victims, much like the idea that abortions cure rape somehow.

Both statistics are to show that not only are there sparsely any women who are raped, get pregnant, and have an abortion in contrast to keeping the child, but also that the women who do this aren't a sizeable amount of abortions, either, so you cannot justify all abortions through this. Or, can justify abortions for those particular cases as well.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']It suffers in the same way that it has had its rights and its freedom to become human, and to live removed.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about suffering in terms of living with extreme pain. It doesn't suffer that like someone living day after day in constant pain.

Anyway, since we can't (and probably never will) come to a consensus on the rape/incest issue, I thought of another scenario I'd like to know what people think of.

What if a pregnancy goes wrong, turns toxic or something, threatening the mother's physical or mental health or her life?

I've mentioned it a page or two ago but I'll bring up this example again: My grandmother's mother had a toxic pregnancy, and an abortion could have helped her, but she was not allowed to have one. The baby died, and her mental state was reduced to that of a child, forcing my grandmother to take care of her own mother as well as her other siblings from the age of 8.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]Clarification for those who continually ignore or misinterpret the reason [I]why[/I] the objection to abolishing abortion is on account of rape being ignored. Since some of us do actually read what these bills would entail. Many of the bills (I am of course referring to ones that I have read) would criminalize [I]all[/I] abortions unless needed to save the life of the woman.

So far every single one I've seen had no exception clauses included in the bills to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. The common reason given... they reject an exception based on rape or incest because "...only 1 to 2 percent of all abortions are due to a rape or incest.

Until that exception is allowed and properly considered, and even then, I will never support making abortions illegal. Especially since the very same legislators are often for Abstinence education only instead of comprehensive. Once they stop sticking their heads in the sand and start addressing more than the symptom, you know, instead of blindly thinking making it illegal will stop unintentional pregnancies... Then I might take the attempt to reform the system more seriously. [/FONT]

[Raiha]

[quote name='TimeChaser']
What if a pregnancy goes wrong, turns toxic or something, threatening the mother's physical or mental health or her life? [/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Setting aside a personal anecdote which is fine but has no place in a debate except to fuel emotionally driven rhetoric...

...please present statistics on said "toxic pregnancies." I'd need you to explain that scientifically so we know what parameters to search for, as you have this odd tendency to make quasi medical statements and then not back them up with any factual evidence. The only other viable case I can think of [in under five minutes] where the fetus endangers the life of the mother is "maternal mirror syndrome" as featured on the show House M.D. a couple seasons ago. These cases are, like rape, extremely rare and do not happen near often enough to warrant sweeping legislation.

Pregnancies go wrong quite often, but it's usually the baby that suffers and dies and the mother that has to deliver a stillborn, miscarry, or go through some other traumatic medical event.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Ah, how the time constraints have been lifted. Now, I will pay more attention to my writing.

[quote name='TimeChaser']I'm talking about suffering in terms of living with extreme pain. It doesn't suffer that like someone living day after day in constant pain.
[/QUOTE]

Something I remember Frederick Douglas saying was when his Master told his Master's Wive to stop teaching Douglas how to read, write, and do math:

[quote]?If you give a ****** an inch, he will take an ell (that is a unit of measurement approx 45 inches). A ****** should know nothing but to obey his master-to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best ****** in the world. Now if you teach that ****** how to to read, there would be no keeping him. it would be unfit for him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.[/quote]

Censored to remain appropriate to the forums. Anyway, it shows a very unfortunate nature that we have, to not be able to distinguish things unless they are compared to other events. Frederick Douglass had absolutely no idea that slavery is horrible, or that he is being mistreated, and such unless someone actually told him so. From hindsight and from general knowledge/moral, we are aware that this is horrible.

Unless I have missed my guess, you are going to argue the stance of ethical euthanasia and abortion due to an inability to know better/feel pain in contrast to the mother feeling pain. To this I plead the fallacy of false cause, and I'm going to illustrate this point. Pleading a case that a fetus not feeling pain makes it justifiable to abort is similar to saying that slavery is alright as long as the slave doesn't know how horrible he has it. It is like saying that because the subject is ignorant of the circumstances, then it is suddenly justified to have those circumstances.

To this, I asked the question: What about the personal knowledge of the circumstances changes those circumstances? The only answer I could come to is that person's response to those circumstances, but that doesn't change the situation that unsaid person is in. So, the personal knowledge of an incident, unlike quantum physics, doesn't change anything about that incident.

In regards to the mother's "suffering" on the incident, I originally addressed this on the first page:

[quote]The ideas that the woman having the baby is somehow a punishment or a horrible thing (babies are some of the most precious gifts that someone can have, and are truly a miracle of biology), that doesn't hold true to statistics. The idea that a woman who has an abortion will somehow get over being raped because of this, that is ignorant of the nature of how rape affects women (you can't just "forget" a tragic moment). The idea that you should "get back" at the rapist for killing his child, this is vengeance born hatred that will accomplish very little in regards to the physical or mental health of the mother.[/quote]

Though I would like to add that abortions are a punishment that do not fit the crime. The rapist, whether or not the woman becomes pregnant is irrelevant to him. If you are going to plead for the emotional appeal on the woman's part, wouldn't it make more sense to further the punishment for the rapist instead of aborting the fetus? Put the blame squarely where it should go.

Now, for clarification, I use the term "suffer" as undergoing penalty, and not a prolonged penalty through time.

In regards to the "ravaging disease", the baby doesn't "suffer" in this manner. Though I do wonder why it is this would be relevant to the thread for any reason that I have not covered above.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Raiha][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]...please present statistics on said "toxic pregnancies." I'd need you to explain that scientifically so we know what parameters to search for[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]I imagine he's referring to this kind of thing here: [URL="http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/articles/MoDFinalReport.pdf"][U]Identifying Toxic Risks Before and During Pregnancy[/U][/URL] Since TC is referring to his grandmother's mother, you're looking at a time frame when identifying such risks wasn't as easy to do as it is today. So the diagnosis was most likely just that 'toxic pregnancy', even though that explains nothing. I'm guessing that this was back in the early 1900's if not late 1800's. (correct me if I'm wrong TC)

Obviously when something goes wrong today, with the advances in medical technology, we have a clearer picture of what happened. The phrase 'toxic pregnancy' is a term that was often used when something had gone terribly wrong that they didn't fully understand. Today that would fall under the exception of allowing an abortion because of a serious health risk to the mother.

So though that's a valid point TC, if I understand you correctly, that kind of thing already[I] is[/I] accepted. Abortions [I]are[/I] allowed if the pregnancy has become a serious health risk to the mother. Even bills that would criminalize all other forms of abortions, do include an exception for genuine health risks. [/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]I imagine he's referring to this kind of thing here: [URL="http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/articles/MoDFinalReport.pdf"][U]Identifying Toxic Risks Before and During Pregnancy[/U][/URL] Since TC is referring to his grandmother's mother, you're looking at a time frame when identifying such risks wasn't as easy to do as it is today. So the diagnosis was most likely just that 'toxic pregnancy', even though that explains nothing. I'm guessing that this was back in the early 1900's if not late 1800's. (correct me if I'm wrong TC)

Obviously when something goes wrong today, with the advances in medical technology, we have a clearer picture of what happened. The phrase 'toxic pregnancy' is a term that was often used when something had gone terribly wrong that they didn't fully understand. Today that would fall under the exception of allowing an abortion because of a serious health risk to the mother.

So though that's a valid point TC, if I understand you correctly, that kind of thing already[I] is[/I] accepted. Abortions [I]are[/I] allowed if the pregnancy has become a serious health risk to the mother. Even bills that would criminalize all other forms of abortions, do include an exception for genuine health risks. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

Thanks, Nathan. That helps clear some things up for me too. I realize diagnosis of such conditions are much better today than they were back then.

[James]

[quote]If you are going to plead for the emotional appeal on the woman's part, wouldn't it make more sense to further the punishment for the rapist instead of aborting the fetus? Put the blame squarely where it should go.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it's far too simplistic.

Rape is a very serious attack that can leave traumatic scars on a woman for the rest of her life. Obviously the rapist should be punished severely, but the ongoing issue relates to the mental stability and happiness of the victim and their ability to live a relatively normal life.

If a woman who has been raped gives birth to the rapist's baby, I imagine her emotional scars are deepened further. Every time she looks at that child throughout its life, what is her first thought going to be? That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience. And god-forbid that the child actually [i]resembles[/i] the man who raped her! I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment involved with that. Not only is there great unfairness placed on the mother, but also on the child - what kind of life is that, to know that you are the product of your mother's rape? How terrible for the child, especially if it has long term consequences for their relationship with the mother.

Now, having said that, I'm not suggesting that a baby born as the result of rape "should" be aborted. I personally believe that abortion is a private decision.

However I wouldn't want to outlaw it in every rape case for the above reasons. I almost think it'd be cruel and unusual punishment to force a woman to give birth to the baby of her rapist. I can not imagine the horror involved with that.

But yeah, as I said, without getting into the back-and-forth on abortion itself... I wanted to make the point that it's very easy for someone (a man especially) to sit back and dictate these kinds of rules on a woman. But that man has absolutely no idea what a rape victim goes through for the rest of their lives.

I personally can not fathom the idea of telling a rape victim what they "must" do in these circumstances. I would not dare try to impose an ideological belief on someone who is genuinely suffering.[/font]

[Lunar]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]

Rape is a very serious attack that can leave traumatic scars on a woman for the rest of her life. Obviously the rapist should be punished severely, but the ongoing issue relates to the mental stability and happiness of the victim and their ability to live a relatively normal life.

If a woman who has been raped gives birth to the rapist's baby, I imagine her emotional scars are deepened further. Every time she looks at that child throughout its life, what is her first thought going to be? That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience. And god-forbid that the child actually [i]resembles[/i] the man who raped her! I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment involved with that. Not only is there great unfairness placed on the mother, but also on the child - what kind of life is that, to know that you are the product of your mother's rape? How terrible for the child, especially if it has long term consequences for their relationship with the mother.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Ah, yes. However, the woman does not in fact have to even look at the baby. She can put it up for adoption, and as said before, there are many couples that would be more than happy to accept a child no matter what the circumstances. So, no, the woman would go through [I]more[/I] emotional problems if she aborted the baby because she would have to deal with the fact that she[I] killed[/I] something on top of the fact that she was raped. It would be easier on her just to give the baby up for adoption and just deal with her other problems. [/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it's far too simplistic.

Rape is a very serious attack that can leave traumatic scars on a woman for the rest of her life. Obviously the rapist should be punished severely, but the ongoing issue relates to the mental stability and happiness of the victim and their ability to live a relatively normal life.

If a woman who has been raped gives birth to the rapist's baby, I imagine her emotional scars are deepened further. Every time she looks at that child throughout its life, what is her first thought going to be? That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience. And god-forbid that the child actually [i]resembles[/i] the man who raped her! I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment involved with that. Not only is there great unfairness placed on the mother, but also on the child - what kind of life is that, to know that you are the product of your mother's rape? How terrible for the child, especially if it has long term consequences for their relationship with the mother.

Now, having said that, I'm not suggesting that a baby born as the result of rape "should" be aborted. I personally believe that abortion is a private decision.

However I wouldn't want to outlaw it in every rape case for the above reasons. I almost think it'd be cruel and unusual punishment to force a woman to give birth to the baby of her rapist. I can not imagine the horror involved with that.

But yeah, as I said, without getting into the back-and-forth on abortion itself... I wanted to make the point that it's very easy for someone (a man especially) to sit back and dictate these kinds of rules on a woman. But that man has absolutely no idea what a rape victim goes through for the rest of their lives.

I personally can not fathom the idea of telling a rape victim what they "must" do in these circumstances. I would not dare try to impose an ideological belief on someone who is genuinely suffering.[/font][/QUOTE]

There is one problem with that argument: The emotional scars are not deepened. I referenced another site in my first post: [url]http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm[/url]

Has a fairly good analysis of what really happens. There is nothing that somehow makes a woman's scar deeper if she has the child or not. But, the abortion is more likely to cause problems than adoption, or simply keeping the child. You cannot just make a woman forget that she was raped by aborting the baby. The world just doesn't work like that. The child and the parent can, and will come to terms with their life, and even come to embrace this.

If you want personal stories of people who were conceived in rape, there are a few other resources I can direct you to:

[url]http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/[/url]

particularly this page:

[url]http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html[/url]

Whether or not the woman gets over the fact that she was raped, or whether or not the child will get over this, that is their personal responsibility to deal with the issue. If you are to say that you should keep it legal because some women feel this way instead of another, this then forces you to remove logic from the issue and go off of only what the woman feels. Then, you would be confronted with cases such as where a woman will be eternally tortured by her child having a particular astrological sign because she couldn't abort it, and you would have to agree with this because this emotional pain is "just as real" as any other.

If you go beyond personal responsibility and justify abortions by rape from emotional appeal, then you open up the flood gates for irrationality and a complete lack of regulation. Who knows where it could go from there.

[James]

[quote]There is one problem with that argument: The emotional scars are not deepened. I referenced another site in my first post:[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The problem here is that the site you've referenced is highly biased. I don't view it as an objective source of information. The fact that it calls pro-choice people "pro-abortionists" is a good indication of that.

Unfortunately neither you or I are psychiatrists, but we should not presume this blanket argument that giving birth to a child as a result of rape [i]never[/i] deepens the psychological scars of a woman. You just can't make that statement, because you're assuming that every woman reacts to every rape the same way (your'e also assuming that all rapes are inherently the same as well).

My point here is not about abortion, so much as it is about your misunderstanding of the potential effects of rape on a victim. [/font]

[quote]So, no, the woman would go through more emotional problems if she aborted the baby because she would have to deal with the fact that she killed something on top of the fact that she was raped. It would be easier on her just to give the baby up for adoption and just deal with her other problems. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's all fine and good, but if you haven't experienced sexual abuse, it's all too easy to say. In theory this sounds fine, but in practice it can be very different.

The core problem with a lot of these arguments is the "one size fits all" approach, which isn't reflective of reality.[/font]

[quote]You cannot just make a woman forget that she was raped by aborting the baby. The world just doesn't work like that. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, let's be clear, nobody is even making this argument in the first place.

The world is also not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Being able to deal with abortion effectively involves a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in every case. Making generalizations doesn't help anyone, it only deepens divisions between people, especially when one group simply doesn't understand another.[/font]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I don't know about you, but I have never seen an incident where a child conceived through rape has ever argued that they shouldn't exist, and that their life is so horrible that they can't stand it. So sorry if I cannot find a "less biased" website, but even then I still require that you have some other arguing point other than the "bias" of the website (ad hominem fallacy).

Anyway, I can take Socratic Reasoning to the issue of what will affect the mother. I ask questions like "what about the birth is so horrible?", "what about the sight of the child being a reminder suddenly makes it so horrible?", "what about an abortion or adoption is horrible?", and so on. The conclusion I came to is that it is not the actual birth that affects the mother the most, but the pregnancy in its own. If a pregnancy occurs, that will have a profound effect on the mother, whether she keeps the child or not. Though the birthing is painful, this is of little consequence psychologically when compared to rape, and in time passes very shortly.

At every turn, with every question I ask, I continually find personal responsibility on going through the issues is what is important. Much like how my mother got through her traumatic life (ritualistically molested by one of her stepfathers), you need to climb these mental hills personally, and no amount of personal vengeance toward an issue is ever going to make you forget an incident.


BTW, you are pleading the case that the woman will forget she is raped when you say the following:

[quote]Every time she looks at that child throughout its life, what is her first thought going to be? That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience. And god-forbid that the child actually resembles the man who raped her! I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment involved with that.[/quote]

Generalization indeed. This examples implies by contrast that a woman cannot go through life after being raped if she keeps the child. Even if this were true (very little evidence to say it so), how does this even make an abortion more acceptable somehow? Are people really so pathetic that they have absolutely no control over their mental state due to a single experience despite all of the evidence showing otherwise? Are you pleading the case for only personal feelings, which is one that is ultimately embraces illogical and untenable justification?


Lets not prattle on about generalizations and exceptions and inability to define any actual moments or psychology, because that is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of philosophy. When you say something like that above, you make a claim: The emotional scars that women endure are enough to allow abortion. This isn't a "yeah, well sometimes but there are exceptions" statement. It is a logical conclusion of circumstance and justification. Either it is true, or it is not true.

[James]

[quote]Generalization indeed. This examples implies by contrast that a woman cannot go through life after being raped if she keeps the child. Even if this were true (very little evidence to say it so), how does this even make an abortion more acceptable somehow? Are people really so pathetic that they have absolutely no control over their mental state due to a single experience despite all of the evidence showing otherwise? Are you pleading the case for only personal feelings, which is one that is ultimately embraces illogical and untenable justification?
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not making a generalization, I am simply saying that your complete dismissal of the long-lasting effects of rape on the rape victim only serves to nullify your original point.

It's one thing to start from a position of being against all abortions and then trying to make sure all evidence fits into that prism. It's another thing to accept that all cases are not the same and that individual choices will vary for many different reasons.

I'm not making the argument that abortions should or shouldn't be done in certain circumstances. I am saying that your analysis of the effects of rape on victims is highly simplistic and does not take into account factors that contradict your point of view.[/font]

[quote]Lets not prattle on about generalizations and exceptions and inability to define any actual moments or psychology, because that is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of philosophy. When you say something like that above, you make a claim: The emotional scars that women endure are enough to allow abortion. This isn't a "yeah, well sometimes but there are exceptions" statement. It is a logical conclusion of circumstance and justification. Either it is true, or it is not true.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here - this look suspiciously like prattle to me! Haha. :catgirl:

Seriously though, I think you're missing an important point here. I have just finished pointing out that I'm not arguing for or against an abortion in the case of rape. I have a personal view on that matter and I'm not debating that with you here.

My point was simply that nobody can suggest that all cases of rape are the same. If you try to say "abortion should not be legal in the case of rape", you are saying that the individual circumstances involved in each case do not matter. I'm saying that they do. It's as simple as that.[/font]

[quote]Much like how my mother got through her traumatic life (ritualistically molested by one of her stepfathers), you need to climb these mental hills personally, and no amount of personal vengeance toward an issue is ever going to make you forget an incident. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'll say this one more time. Read this carefully: [i]nobody is saying that an abortion would cause a rape victim to forget being raped[/i]. I'm not sure how you glean this from my statements or the statements of others.[/font]

[quote]what about the sight of the child being a reminder suddenly makes it so horrible?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This question (and the way it was flippantly asked) is not even worth a serious response. It's worth me responding simply to point that out.[/font]

[quote]The conclusion I came to is that it is not the actual birth that affects the mother the most, but the pregnancy in its own. If a pregnancy occurs, that will have a profound effect on the mother, whether she keeps the child or not. Though the birthing is painful, this is of little consequence psychologically when compared to rape, and in time passes very shortly.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This almost sounds like it comes from a text book! Thank you, Dr. Crimson Spider. Where did you get your degree is psychiatry and pediatrics?

In all seriousness, reaching a personal conclusion is one thing. But don't pass that off as some kind of empirical final word.

It is ironic that a male would sit here and make generalizations about the experiences that a woman has. My underlying point all along was that I'm in no position to arbitrarily decide what "degree" of suffering for a woman is acceptable or how she "should" react to that. It's incredibly arrogant to do so - and if I were a woman, I certainly wouldn't want that directed at me.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'll say this one more time. Read this carefully: [i]nobody is saying that an abortion would cause a rape victim to forget being raped[/i]. I'm not sure how you glean this from my statements or the statements of others.[/font][/QUOTE]I've been wondering that myself actually, where the notion that abortion makes someone forget rape is even possible. o_O That's like an oxymoron right there. Unless something happens to change your mental state, like an accident or a stroke... you [I]can't[/I] forget.

I can't speak for others, but it's been 30 years for me and I haven't forgotten. There was no abortion issue involved (I was too young to get pregnant) but still, rape isn't forgettable and like James just pointed out, that's an assumption that you've pulled out of thin air CS, I say thin air since no one has made that claim. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]It is ironic that a male would sit here and make generalizations about the experiences that a woman has. My underlying point all along was that I'm in no position to arbitrarily decide what "degree" of suffering for a woman is acceptable or how she "should" react to that. It's incredibly arrogant to do so - and if I were a woman, I certainly wouldn't want that directed at me.[/font][/QUOTE]Exactly. It's incredibly easy to look in from the outside and think you know how someone should react. It's quite a bit different to be on the inside of that situation and looking at things from that direction.

Which is why I will [I]never[/I] support a blanket law to exclude that rare exception caused by rape. I know what kind of hell that is. Just as I know that depending on the factors involved, there will be cases where abortion will be the best solution. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not making a generalization, I am simply saying that your complete dismissal of the long-lasting effects of rape on the rape victim only serves to nullify your original point.

It's one thing to start from a position of being against all abortions and then trying to make sure all evidence fits into that prism. It's another thing to accept that all cases are not the same and that individual choices will vary for many different reasons.

I'm not making the argument that abortions should or shouldn't be done in certain circumstances. I am saying that your analysis of the effects of rape on victims is highly simplistic and does not take into account factors that contradict your point of view.[/font][/quote]

You know, people have been saying that I have been making "generalizations". When I reflect on the past few pages, where exactly are these generalizations that I am making? What are these "long-lasting" effects that I have ignored or forgotten? I just do not see them.

EDIT: Ah, found one. Though it is more of a misunderstanding than a generalization (albeit an accurate one, supported by a statistic claiming 85% tendency). When I said it doesn't deepen emotional scars, that wasn't to say that there were no cases where it did. That is, really, to speak about the general trend, which is no, it does not. /EDIT

I have made my best attempts to remain behind the thought processes and arguments behind these cases, and not the actual emotional appeal (though the topic somehow shifted toward this). If you are avoiding an argument, there is very little to discuss at this point.

[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here - this look suspiciously like prattle to me! Haha. :catgirl:

Seriously though, I think you're missing an important point here. I have just finished pointing out that I'm not arguing for or against an abortion in the case of rape. I have a personal view on that matter and I'm not debating that with you here.

My point was simply that nobody can suggest that all cases of rape are the same. If you try to say "abortion should not be legal in the case of rape", you are saying that the individual circumstances involved in each case do not matter. I'm saying that they do. It's as simple as that.[/font][/quote]

Agreed, except on one point. Though you are avoiding an argument, you are making a claim then: That some individual circumstances involved in rape will justify the abortion. I would need a much greater elaboration to make any comment on this, other than the following statement: The fundamental argument for allowing a woman to abort the fetus because it was conceived in rape isn't substantial enough.


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]I'll say this one more time. Read this carefully: [i]nobody is saying that an abortion would cause a rape victim to forget being raped[/i]. I'm not sure how you glean this from my statements or the statements of others.[/font][/quote]

Allow me to show you how I pick up these notions. For example, in the phrase "That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience.", the key word is "reminder", which implies that an incident would have been forgotten or gotten over. In the particular instances, it implies that the incident would have been forgotten or gotten over had the child been aborted.

Chances are, you have just worded the phrase incorrectly, and thus have caused an inaccurate implication by contrast. Or, you had not seriously thought about the actual circumstances behind rape, and had placed a plastic "if only" view onto the issue like most political parties.


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]This almost sounds like it comes from a text book! Thank you, Dr. Crimson Spider. Where did you get your degree is psychiatry and pediatrics?

In all seriousness, reaching a personal conclusion is one thing. But don't pass that off as some kind of empirical final word.

It is ironic that a male would sit here and make generalizations about the experiences that a woman has. My underlying point all along was that I'm in no position to arbitrarily decide what "degree" of suffering for a woman is acceptable or how she "should" react to that. It's incredibly arrogant to do so - and if I were a woman, I certainly wouldn't want that directed at me.[/font][/QUOTE]

Your welcome. Also of interesting notes are my past articles about what inspires the fear of the dark, the presence of hardwired factors culminating into absolute morality, and probability being mistaken as the "Math God". I obtained my degree through 21 years of hard life and oppression, and receive expert opinions in the places where I am lacking :D.

I'm sorry, but "credo" is of little value to me. Anyway, my stance on the issue is that the emotional appeals are not nearly as important as the logical conclusions behind the actions to be taken.

When you take a stance on this issue, you have to do something uncomfortable. You either have to tell a rape victim to their face that they do not have that right over their own body, or you have to tell an individual conceived in rape to their face that their life is not worth living.


And if it helps, my mother is also against abortions that were conceived in rape.

[James]

[quote]I have made my best attempts to remain behind the thought processes and arguments behind these cases, and not the actual emotional appeal (though the topic somehow shifted toward this). If you are avoiding an argument, there is very little to discuss at this point.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure where the emotional aspect even comes in. Again, that's something you've raised from apparently nowhere.

I was always talking about the justifications behind your thought process. I just finished explaining my view on your sources and how you've made certain assertions that you are passing off as some kind of empirical fact, when they are largely personal opinions.

So you've quoted me but you haven't really responded to what I said.

I am obviously debating with you, but this debate stems from your earlier flippant attitude towards rape and its effects on victims. [/font]

[quote]Though you are avoiding an argument, you are making a claim then: That some individual circumstances involved in rape will justify the abortion. I would need a much greater elaboration to make any comment on this, other than the following statement: The fundamental argument for allowing a woman to abort the fetus because it was conceived in rape isn't substantial enough.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No, I'm not making that argument.

My argument is that your justification for a blanket ban on any kind of abortion (including in rape cases) is based on these vague generalizations that don't recognize the complexity involved or the variations with different unique cases.

It's fine to be against any form of abortion whatsoever, but making these matter-of-fact assertions about victims of rape is not a good way to justify your position. [/font]

[quote]Allow me to show you how I pick up these notions. For example, in the phrase "That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience.", the key word is "reminder", which implies that an incident would have been forgotten or gotten over. In the particular instances, it implies that the incident would have been forgotten or gotten over had the child been aborted.

Chances are, you have just worded the phrase incorrectly, and thus have caused an inaccurate implication by contrast. Or, you had not seriously thought about the actual circumstances behind rape, and had placed a plastic "if only" view onto the issue like most political parties.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You've simply misinterpreted me. Suggesting that in some cases the child may be an ever-present reminder of the incident [i]does not[/i] imply that if the child were not there, the victim would suddenly forget they'd been raped. You are drawing an incredibly long bow with my comments.

SunfallE's response earlier indicates that what I had said was pretty clear, I think.[/font]

[quote]Also of interesting notes are my past articles about what inspires the fear of the dark, the presence of hardwired factors culminating into absolute morality, and probability being mistaken as the "Math God".[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]What? This reminds me of when Sarah Palin tried to explain the bailout to Katie Couric. I have no idea what you're saying here - but it comes across as an attempt to be verbose in the absence of any noteworthy comment. It just confuses the discussion. [/font]

[quote]I obtained my degree through 21 years of hard life and oppression, and receive expert opinions in the places where I am lacking .

I'm sorry, but "credo" is of little value to me. Anyway, my stance on the issue is that the emotional appeals are not nearly as important as the logical conclusions behind the actions to be taken.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The first paragraph just doesn't make sense. I don't know if you're actually serious or trying to be sarcastic.

As for the second part...it's easy to dismiss credo (assuming you are referring to professional doctors) when real scientific data may actually contradict your point of view. Or at the very least, when the psychology behind rape and rape victims proves to be far more complex than some limited, black-and-white assessment. Again, this comes back to fitting everything into a pre-determined prism - and damn the reality, darn it!

You may find the emotional argument irrelevant, but I think there are a couple of obvious points to make about that.

First of all, I don't think anyone here has actually made an emotional argument (at least not recently). I am certainly talking logic here, in trying to reflect the complexity of the problem.

And secondly, it's actually probably not a good idea to dismiss emotion anyway. After all, a person's emotional state has great bearing on their overall mental health - this is certainly true for rape victims.

My cousin, who I've been close to since we were both toddlers, was visciously raped a couple of years ago (she is also mentally ill). I can tell you that the emotional argument is certainly relevant for her, because it often dominates the way she thinks to this day.[/font]

[quote]When you take a stance on this issue, you have to do something uncomfortable. You either have to tell a rape victim to their face that they do not have that right over their own body, or you have to tell an individual conceived in rape to their face that their life is not worth living.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Those are the only options? This is a perfect example of what I've been saying all along. You are dramatically oversimplifying the issue. It's either option A or B and that's the extent of your thinking.

You are certainly advocating option A. But who is advocating option B? Where did that option even come from anyway?

Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that a child who is the product of a rape should be told that their life is not worth living. And nobody's even remotely suggested that their life is not worthy.

My only comment was that if a woman who is raped gives birth to her rapist's baby, there may be a chance (if she keeps the baby) that this child will forever be a reminder of what happened to her (and that there would be several negative consequences as a result of this). This is certainly not an uncommon problem, but I'm also not suggesting that it is the case for every situation like this.

This comment underlines the idea that all rape cases are not the same and that it is incredibly difficult (likely impossible) to understand the mentality of a rape victim unless you yourself have been one.

This is why I am hesitant to tell a rape victim what they should do or how they should recover and deal with their feelings. Apart from the fact that I'm not a professional who deals with these issues, my inability to truly understand the experience and feelings of a rape victim makes me unqualified - especially considering that I'm only offering a lay opinion in the first place.[/font]

[quote]And if it helps, my mother is also against abortions that were conceived in rape.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]What difference does that make? I'm not debating with your mother.

It is great that your mother has the strength and ability to overcome abuse. But in the real world, there are many different abuse cases involving many different people. Some people recover, some do not. Some have life-long consequences that make it almost impossible to live a normal life, while others are able to find some semblance of normality after such horrors.

The bottom line is that all people are not the same and all cases are not the same. [/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]Whew I've been busy and so have the rest of you all from the looks of this thread so I'll just skip the chit chat (I did read various posts in this thread before deciding to post my own) and cut right to the chase:

I believe that life doesn't really begin until around the fifth month because that's when a human fetus can live on its own outside of the mother.

I don't agree with abortion and I would never personally get one, but I don't believe that that choice should be taken away or that the government should be able to intervine (can't spell this morning/ afternoon) and say when someone can have an abortion or make someone ask for permission. But I also don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control- once it's gone that far your need for birth control is past.

I think abrotions should be available in cases of rape or incest or health reasons. I also believe that women should have immediate access to the 'morning after' pill which can only be used within forty-eight hours of intercourse but can prevent a pregnancy from continuing. I don't think that Roe v Wade should be overturned so that the states can make up their own rules and that abortions become illegal so they're shoved underground and become extremely dangerous.

But here's a hard question- should the woman be allowed to get an abortion if the child would have birth defects that could cost a lot of money and prevent the child from leading a normal healthy life?[/color]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]I’ve been silent on this up till now, but I’m going to toss in a little on the attempt to act like considering pregnancies from rape is a non-issue. I actually work in a field that deals with these victims so I see an incredible amount of ignorance going on in this thread. I’d cover other issues, like better programs to prevent pregnancy in the first place, but others have already done that so I’ll leave it alone. Anyway…

Blanket assumptions on the issue of abortions concerning traumatic events like rape are not only useless but a slap in the face of the person who was assaulted. It’s bad enough that someone raped them, but to turn around and then invade their lives again by making their choices for them is just as bad if not worse than what happened. In the end all you’re doing is something similar to what the rapist just did, you’re making their choices for them.

Sexual abuse makes people feel invaded, damaged and like their lives are out of their control. Before you do anything, stop and try to imagine how this feels. Then (and this is crucial) try to do what helps [I]them[/I] rather than what makes [I]you[/I] feel better. At this stage, your religion, or your beliefs, they are [I]not[/I] a part of the solution and have no place in how someone who has experienced this is treated. You have to listen to what they want and focus on what they actually need.

To facilitate recovery, it is central to that process that they are able (and allowed to do so freely) to make their own decisions to begin regaining influence over what happens in their lives in order to rebuild the trust and strength that was violated when they were raped. Your role is to help support them, not take over and make all of their choices for them.

It is common for loved ones, who are also distressed, to step in and be too protective, or to treat them differently and then make the mistake of trying to make their decisions for them. The same for well meaning but uninvolved legislators, they think they are helping by attempting to make these laws when all this does is add to the problem, and frustration that comes from the attack in the first place.

The whole point of therapy for rape victims is the give them guidance and support to help them get the aid they need to begin making the decisions necessary to rebuild their lives. Not for you or anyone else to tell them what you THINK they need.

The biggest objection to allowing abortion for rape that I hear is the allocation that it’s rare. Unfortunately, it’s not anywhere as rare as people THINK it is. It’s the overwhelming numbers of people who get abortions for other reasons that make it seem rare. To put it in perspective here’s a little bit of information on that:

[B]Pregnancies Resulting from Rape[/B]

In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.

This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies:

[LIST][*] Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.
[*] Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy.
[*] Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection.
[*] Victims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons.[/LIST]
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could raise the actual number of pregnancies:
[LIST][*] Medical estimates of a 5% pregnancy rate are for one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse. Some victimizations may include multiple incidents of intercourse.
[*] Because of methodology, NCVS does not measure the victimization of Americans age 12 or younger. Rapes of these young people could results in pregnancies not accounted for in RAINN's estimates.[/LIST]
Source: [URL="http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims"][U]RAINN[/U][/URL]

An average of around 3,000 pregnancies a year is a hell of a lot of people and the statistics don’t do that justice. The very idea that we should tell ALL of these victims to just suck it up or that we even have a clue as to what path will best facilitate their recovery is not only arrogant, but ignorant and short sighted. They need to be handled on a case by case basis since all of them are going to differ.

You don’t toss out an option just because you personally find it repugnant. You get your head out of the sand and look at the whole picture and help that person find the best road to recovery. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not is irrelevant, there will be cases where abortion will be the best option.

I haven't even touched on the psychological trauma and damage this does because it's staggering, whether a person becomes pregnant or not. Making it too complex for broad generalizations. And that includes the idea that abortions for this would be useless and make it worse. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=Indi][COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]They [/COLOR][the victims][COLOR=Indigo] need to be handled on a case by case basis since all of them are going to differ.

You don?t toss out an option just because you personally find it repugnant.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]I think many people miss this aspect in their desire to debate and prove who is 'more right' than who. While the statement [I]women are going to get abortions regardless of the law, so we should make it legal to help ensure safety[/I] is well-intentioned [U]but[/U] [U]flawed[/U], the counter-argument [I]abortions are a crime against human life and should be outlawed[/I] is just as well-intentioned and [U]just[/U] [U]as[/U] [U]flawed[/U].

In the rape situation, one [I]has[/I] to deal with the individual and counsel the appropriately, allowing them to make their own decisions and ensuring that they are making their decision consciously and knowingly, while at the same time not allowing one's personal beliefs to factor heavily into one's efforts. Personally, I am against abortion, so while I would subtly ([U]subtly[/U], mind; always with tact and never intrusively) encourage the victim away from abortion, I would still fully support them if they decided to have one, because ultimately it's [I]not my call[/I]. And while I might find such a decision completely wrong, the victim doesn't need my judgment. They need my support, and they need most of all to feel like they are still worth something to someone.

[CENTER]-------------------------[/CENTER]

For the case where the life of the mother is in danger: given our current medical advancement and ability to frustrated Death's advances at almost every turn (save age and a few others), how often is this scenario actually going to happen? (If someone has some current stats, I'd love to see them, since I know basically nothing of current pregnancy danger-rates.)

For the case where the pregnancy is accidental, based on one's lifestyle: come on. That's just irresponsibility. Have the kid and grow up. Your fault for screwin' around. Either that, or you need to start wearing a Scarlet A.[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']When you take a stance on this issue, you have to do something uncomfortable. [B]You either have to tell a rape victim to their face that they do not have that right over their own body[/B], or you have to tell an individual conceived in rape to their face that their life is not worth living.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to point out how slippery this statement is, because that can also be used to justify what the rapist did to the woman. Since she has no right to her own body, then it's free license for the rapist and he can get away without legal repercussions.

I know that isn't what you are saying, but I think you should reconsider before you make that claim, because if you actually said that to a rape victim, you WOULD be compounding their emotional trauma.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']I'd like to point out how slippery this statement is, because that can also be used to justify what the rapist did to the woman. Since she has no right to her own body, then it's free license for the rapist and he can get away without legal repercussions.

I know that isn't what you are saying, but I think you should reconsider before you make that claim, because if you actually said that to a rape victim, you WOULD be compounding their emotional trauma.[/QUOTE]

The slippery slope is a fallacy. A cannot = B and = C and = D at the same time. You have misunderstood my post: I said "That right" to her own body. Not "rights in general". There is a difference, particularly that the right of abortion is the right in question of this thread. We can't assume this right if we are going to debate it.

Anyway, to say that an individual conceived in rape didn't have their right live is also going to add to emotional trauma. Like I said: either way, you step on toes.



[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure where the emotional aspect even comes in. Again, that's something you've raised from apparently nowhere.

I was always talking about the justifications behind your thought process. I just finished explaining my view on your sources and how you've made certain assertions that you are passing off as some kind of empirical fact, when they are largely personal opinions.

So you've quoted me but you haven't really responded to what I said.

I am obviously debating with you, but this debate stems from your earlier flippant attitude towards rape and its effects on victims. [/font][/quote]

Raised from nowhere? Do you not realize that the emotional aspect sympathizing with rape victims is almost the entire argument for maintaining the legality of abortions in those instances?

I am fighting against shadows here. What flippant attitude? What generalizations? What "forgotten ideals"?




[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]No, I'm not making that argument.

My argument is that your justification for a blanket ban on any kind of abortion (including in rape cases) is based on these vague generalizations that don't recognize the complexity involved or the variations with different unique cases.

It's fine to be against any form of abortion whatsoever, but making these matter-of-fact assertions about victims of rape is not a good way to justify your position. [/font][/quote]

Again, I am fighting against shadows. Please tell me where I have done this.



[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]You've simply misinterpreted me. Suggesting that in some cases the child may be an ever-present reminder of the incident [i]does not[/i] imply that if the child were not there, the victim would suddenly forget they'd been raped. You are drawing an incredibly long bow with my comments.

SunfallE's response earlier indicates that what I had said was pretty clear, I think.[/font][/quote]

Yes, it does. Otherwise, the statement would be completely unrelated to the topic at hand, unsubstantiated in your own mind, and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever in its presence. Since you have made such a statement, you imply a claim. That is all there is to it.


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]What? This reminds me of when Sarah Palin tried to explain the bailout to Katie Couric. I have no idea what you're saying here - but it comes across as an attempt to be verbose in the absence of any noteworthy comment. It just confuses the discussion. [/font][/quote]

I was playing off of sarcasm. No real point there.


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]The first paragraph just doesn't make sense. I don't know if you're actually serious or trying to be sarcastic.

As for the second part...it's easy to dismiss credo (assuming you are referring to professional doctors) when real scientific data may actually contradict your point of view. Or at the very least, when the psychology behind rape and rape victims proves to be far more complex than some limited, black-and-white assessment. Again, this comes back to fitting everything into a pre-determined prism - and damn the reality, darn it!

You may find the emotional argument irrelevant, but I think there are a couple of obvious points to make about that.

First of all, I don't think anyone here has actually made an emotional argument (at least not recently). I am certainly talking logic here, in trying to reflect the complexity of the problem.

And secondly, it's actually probably not a good idea to dismiss emotion anyway. After all, a person's emotional state has great bearing on their overall mental health - this is certainly true for rape victims.

My cousin, who I've been close to since we were both toddlers, was visciously raped a couple of years ago (she is also mentally ill). I can tell you that the emotional argument is certainly relevant for her, because it often dominates the way she thinks to this day.[/font][/quote]

I hate fighting against shadows. Anyway, the emotional aspect becomes irrelevant in regards to law, because otherwise you wouldn't have any order. You could claim that because someone broke your television, that it is worthy of the death penalty because you loved your television so much, and that it affected you so much that they should be killed for it under the same grounds that you claim that a woman who was raped should be allowed to abort the baby only because she feels that way about it.

The emotional appeal is ultimately arbitrary. You have to go off of the legal standard if you want to maintain the system. Whether or not someone minds something is irrelevant to whether or not a law is broken, or a right exists.



[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]Those are the only options? This is a perfect example of what I've been saying all along. You are dramatically oversimplifying the issue. It's either option A or B and that's the extent of your thinking.

You are certainly advocating option A. But who is advocating option B? Where did that option even come from anyway?

Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that a child who is the product of a rape should be told that their life is not worth living. And nobody's even remotely suggested that their life is not worthy.

My only comment was that if a woman who is raped gives birth to her rapist's baby, there may be a chance (if she keeps the baby) that this child will forever be a reminder of what happened to her (and that there would be several negative consequences as a result of this). This is certainly not an uncommon problem, but I'm also not suggesting that it is the case for every situation like this.

This comment underlines the idea that all rape cases are not the same and that it is incredibly difficult (likely impossible) to understand the mentality of a rape victim unless you yourself have been one.

This is why I am hesitant to tell a rape victim what they should do or how they should recover and deal with their feelings. Apart from the fact that I'm not a professional who deals with these issues, my inability to truly understand the experience and feelings of a rape victim makes me unqualified - especially considering that I'm only offering a lay opinion in the first place.[/font][/quote]

It isn't oversimplified. It is exactly how it is, and it cannot be any other way, due to the laws of thought. This system is binary: either the right exists or it doesn't exist. Either A = A, or A = B. You cannot have A = A sometimes, or A = B sometimes.

Claiming a shadow that "it might exist" or "it is too simple" doesn't accomplish anything. Can you please tell me how it is that abortions are somehow O.K. in one rape case but not another due to the emotional impact that the mother has? Can you tell me how it is that endorsing abortions in instances of rape doesn't say that the child doesn't have a right to exist in contrast to endorsing any other method to resolve the personal issues? Is this based in logic at all, or is this just out of personal feeling?

Your position in "sometimes so and so feels some way" says absolutely nothing regarding the issue then, and serves no other purpose than to try to meaninglessly undermine my position because it seems too "generalized".

I, myself, am not hesitant to tell people how they should recover. If I find that a rape victim has decided to go into cutting herself and torturing animals in order to deal with emotional scars, for example, am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut about this behavior because of the way she feels?


[quote][font=franklin gothic medium]What difference does that make? I'm not debating with your mother.

It is great that your mother has the strength and ability to overcome abuse. But in the real world, there are many different abuse cases involving many different people. Some people recover, some do not. Some have life-long consequences that make it almost impossible to live a normal life, while others are able to find some semblance of normality after such horrors.

The bottom line is that all people are not the same and all cases are not the same. [/font][/QUOTE]

My mother and I have the same position. If you are debating against me, you are vicariously debating with my mother; a rape victim who has much more "credibility" than me on the issue.

Individual cases of personal feelings have little bearing on the right. Because someone is unhappy with something isn't justification for change. Either the right exists, or it does not exist.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Crimson Spider']My mother and I have the same position. If you are debating against me, you are vicariously debating with my mother; a rape victim who has much more "credibility" than me on the issue. [/quote]You are also debating with a person who was a victim of rape and I do agree with allowing an abortion in this type of situation. You're conveniently glossing over that fact here.

As others have pointed out repeatedly, each case will be different, no matter how much you argue otherwise. And by your own logic, I have more "credibility" than you do on this issue.

If you are trying to argue that your mother somehow has the ONLY acceptable view on what should be allowed or how this kind of situation should be handled, then your point falls back into attempting to force your morals and values on others.

I do not share that narrow minded way of thinking nor belief that making abortion illegal for rape victims is acceptable. It is my unfortunate experience in that respect that tells me to deny someone who has been harmed in this manner the ability to abort the pregnancy, is what would be wrong.

As I said before, my stance on abolishing it for rape victims will not change. Case by case evaluation as [COLOR="Indigo"]Indi[/COLOR] already pointed out, is the best solution instead of blindly thinking you or anyone else know what's best for another individual. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

It's called "appealing to ignorance". As I had stated many times, a persons ethological appeal has very little persuasion over me.


Anyway, the statement that I have heard is that "cases are different". This, although an obvious given, has very little bearing on the issue. If you go into personal instances, you opt out of logical statements and rights, and then go toward personal feelings on the issue.

What about any particular individual case suddenly makes abortion a viable option? How to you measure this factor, if it is not a binary one?

I am getting an argument from ignorance: Saying that I am somehow incorrect because "I don't know" and there are cases where it would somehow be allowed. This has little to do with my question on the fact (should the emotional suffering of the woman justify the abortion?), which is a question that doesn't require the particular instances. Example:

"Oh, normally murder isn't lawful, but since my nephew was robbed and he REALLY liked his videogames, he has a right to kill that other individual. How dare you try to tell him what solution is best! You can never understand what it is like to have your favorite possession taken away from you!"


Until you can provide something tenable, I am just going to remain under the assumption that the bulk of your post, SunfallE, is an ad hominem fallacy.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Crimson Spider'][CENTER]Stuff Goes Here[/CENTER][/QUOTE]Others have already given you what's needed to see it, you simply refuse to do so. I can't help you there I'm afraid. That's something you have to do for yourself. So until you do that, I am done wasting my time in here.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']"Oh, normally murder isn't lawful, but since my nephew was robbed and he REALLY liked his videogames, he has a right to kill that other individual. How dare you try to tell him what solution is best! You can never understand what it is like to have your favorite possession taken away from you!"[/QUOTE]

You've said many times that what other people are arguing is a fallacy, but this statement is also one.

You are mirroring what Mother Teresa said in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace... Because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me; there is nothing in between."

This is an extreme view that does not accept that there IS an in-between, that abortion does not have to be be made entirely illegal, and that allowing it would not mean the total breakdown of law and order in society.

And I don't think looking at rape on a case by case basis is appealing only to emotion, there are also medical and psychological factors to be taken into account. As many people have already stated, not every rape is the same, so treating them all as such is doing a disservice to the unique needs of each victim.