News /
14 year old rape victim from Warsaw denied abortion! [348]
1) DNA guides from conception, ok. But guides to what and from what? (from personhood to personhood? LOL) I think there needs to be a compromise here, right now. I unequivocally state that there is a guiding process to ultimate formation and delivery but the very fact that we name four different stages shows that there are meaningful phases changes. Like it or not, GS, definitions come into play and can catch us out. Murder as malice aforethought :) Zygote-Embryo-Foetus-Birth. Why don't we just scrap the terminology and say that, at every stage, it's an unborn child striving towards birth and its first breath? It would get round the whole 'it's just a bunch of blob and cells' point. When you say it's an unborn child, people will react differently. As an anti-abortionist, I'd like that. However, the fact remains that, to many courts of law (law being social consensus here), that an unborn child in its earliest stages of development (from fertilisation to zygote) doesn't qualify for personhood. Viability and sentience enter the equation in a big way and this is FACT, like it or not.
2) That is a hard question for sure, GS. We must, on such occasions, stick with facts as best we can. It all goes back to personhood.
3) Not true at all. You ignored the physical element where the woman had to carry an unborn child of rape, you ignored the various costs of raising the kid (what if she was from a lower-class background?) and you also ignored the pain of childbirth which they may not want to go through when the baby is not from their hubby's sperm. I know what science says and I agree that the DNA is there at conception. Reason, well, I use more of it than you do. I seem to recall that you dubbed all other factors other than science as "immaterial". Many women, famous or otherwise, are pro-abortion and for you to say that I am blatantly lying is absurd. I outlined practical, social, physiological, psychological and physical reasons against bearing a child of rape. What other factors do you want me to raise? Oh, you are going back on your ultra, pro-life impulse? Prove God exists! You are resting your case on his existence so prove he exists. I'll prove laws exist on demand :)
4) Let's wheel out figures then. Many contend that more people sought abortions when it was illegal. Before we get into that, you ducked the ONE question I wanted you to answer. If abortion is indeed murder, then why aren't you for the administering of the standard punishment for murder? What penalty would you give to doctors who carry out abortions if you were a lawmaker? What about the woman?
5) GS, it's a general consensus that sentience begins at 23 weeks. Go and check it up. Here, 'Eventually, two pro-life scientists, K.J. Anand and P.R. Hickey, undertook extensive research to prove once and for all that aborted fetuses feel pain. But their results pointed to the opposite conclusion: that it was unlikely that fetuses could feel pain until the beginning of the 7th month, when the lobes of their growing brains had drawn together and established synaptic contact. (1) From all the scientific evidence gathered so far, the pro-life effort to turn the 8-week old fetus into a functional person is a failure', from huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm
'Pro-life advocates accept this argument more than they realize. This can be seen in their response to a rare but sometimes seen pro-choice argument. This argument claims that because a man's ejaculate contains nearly 300 million sperm, natural abortion must occur, because all but one of them will die upon failing to fertilize the egg. Pro-life advocates correctly point out that the sperm is not a person, so no harm is done. Killing the potential of that sperm to become a 30-year old adult with a full-fledged life is not a tragedy, because that potential was never actualized; you can't harm a potential person. The same logic drives the pro-choice argument about the fetus and abortion. If the fetus is not yet a person, abortion cannot harm the future person it will never become. The fact that the fetus has the natural inevitability of becoming a person, whereas a sperm does not, is a separate issue that we shall explore in a moment. But the basic point remains: potentiality is not personhood'.
The above will give you food for thought.
6) I tell you what, I'm fed up with you ignoring the links I post. I found at least 5 websites to support my contention that many illegal abortions took place every year in America. I will post them after some time but I want YOU to try and see my side, as an anti-abortionist after all (with exceptions). If you can see where I am coming from, I will take this further. If not, it's futile!
7) Why would the kid be ridiculed if everyone knew and told, GS? It's a life under God, isn't it? I'm not questioning their right as kids to be defended, GS. They should be. However, it doesn't change the humiliation they may well face. Again, it's back to quality of life. There are plenty of forums discussing such things, GS, but you don't care. They are homo sapiens when a fertilised egg but can they SHOW their humanity? People show humanity through good deeds, right? You are stumbling, GS. Humanity or humanness? They demonstrate their humanity through a knowledge of morality, generosity and compassion amongst other things. Am I wrong? Good Christian values!! Good human values!! What does your zygote spawned of rape value? What will they value when not part of a natural family? Humanity should be shown through moral precepts, modesty of the soul and leading by example through the lessons of Jesus, right?
Humanity strikes me as a concept of spirituality and philosophy. Does spirituality require allegiance to any religion or does it just require a firm and sound grounding in right and wrong and guidance from certain forces and identification with fellow humans? (take Buddhism as spirituality and not a religion as it has no dogma. Confucianism is a complex case but it has ostensible dogma though not enough for it to be a religion in the minds of many) Empathy through shared experiences. What has your embryo experienced?
I could pound you with much tougher points, GS, but I'll let you out of jail by saying that we need to give most unborns the chance to find their own manifest path. I don't want to strike any discordant chords and second guess how the child will be. However, whether you like it or not, you (like me) are neither a legislator nor a woman. The Church of England sees all your science and your moral standpoint but still see fit to treat rape as a special case. Why? They have NO interest in promoting 'murder' when they expressly spell it out that they are fervently against it. To my knowledge, they accept no backhanders.
Ah, let me shoot you down before you get ahead of yourself. She chose to be raped, yes or no? If you say yes then it's not a rape. It's forced penile penetration without her express and willing consent (Stallard defines it differently but ho hum). If you say no then let's move forward. She had no choice in the rape but she has a choice with regards to abortion. She can talk it through with medical professionals and decide if the harm to herself and her child is worth it. I'm very much of the belief that if she is from a lower-class background with a husband who wants a child by her in the future, that she will not go through with bearing the child. It stands to reason. I follow the verstehen approach and put myself in the position of supportive father (easy for me). When she bears that child of rape, responsibilities start. It is, biologically, her kid and she will want to distance herself from her rapist non-husband as much as possible. Agreed? Let me guess, you think she enjoyed the sex so much that she will want to do it again? No, didn't think so!!!!! Ok, that solves the problem neatly, she will want nothing to do with him. He will scarper but that begs the question of aliment. He will be in prison for rape and, thus, won't be earning for a very long time. Who will pay the alimony? Where will the paternal influence be? Let's imagine she wants to keep the kid as I said above that the maternal instinct is a biological function of a mother. That's her right as a mother if she bore the kid and the father wants nothing to do with it. I noted with intrigue in the other thread that you denounced homosexuality. Could it be that you are of the opinion that 2 parents (man and woman) are better than one when raising a kid? Am I right? What if the woman subsequently meets her husband and has a kid with him but has this other reminder?
I'll let others judge on how I've done in responding to you. I won't proclaim to have cut you down or call you jello or detract from the sanctity of life as an anti-abortionist. I'll just say that women, as ACTUAL tangible humans capable of making choices (can your embryo do this?) should be heard as those vested with rights. I care not for the dilution of rights!
However, as a man who doesn't go out to win arguments, I will say once again that we need to, um, in the words of Ezekiel 25:17 (Pulp Fiction), 'shepherd the weak through the valley of darkness'. When the child emerges into the light, I will rejoice like any other. Give the woman her choice, GS, and your research may not be as valid as you had hoped!!
