You're missing the point. The objective of the example is to identify when, and how, one right (the right to life) overrides the other (the right to bodily autonomy), as the other poster seemed to imply that the right to life automatically overrides all other rights. If you're correct, then it is not simply that the right to life is a stronger right, but some other condition, like engaging in consensual sex where one assumes the risk of pregnancy, is required to override the right to bodily autonomy in these cases. If so, then this distinction matters, because then we have a) determined that a right to life is not, on its face, a stronger right against another's right to their body, and b) determined that our task is to identify the specific conditions necessary to define when the right to bodily autonomy is forfeit, and hence abortion is not permissible.BigRobSA said:
That is a really dumb, inaccurate, analogy.
99% of the time, if not more, the woman got pregnant of her own accord. Nobody else made your kidneys ***** out.
You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.
Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
That is not what this is all about. This is about what legal argument can support. Any emotion we have has to be cast aside to consider what we can prove, what reasoned argument supports, and what a fundamental respect for rights requires. Does life begin at conception, of course. But what type of life, and how does that life relate to fundamental rights? If you'd read any of my other posts in this thread you'd see that I contend that agreeing that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception doesn't solve the matter, especially not within any framework that is helpful for crafting laws that respect not only its rights, but also those held by the pregnant woman. That's why so many women are up in arms, because they feel that their rights to their bodies are not being acknowledged. I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Simply admit it's a rights debate, and then do the difficult job of crafting laws respective of the rights of all impacted parties.dermdoc said:
Do you think life begins at conception?
That is all that this is about.
oldyeller said:That is not what this is all about. This is about what legal argument can support. Any emotion we have has to be cast aside to consider what we can prove, what reasoned argument supports, and what a fundamental respect for rights requires. Does life begin at conception, of course. But what type of life, and how does that life relate to fundamental rights? If you'd read any of my other posts in this thread you'd see that I contend that agreeing that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception doesn't solve the matter, especially not within any framework that is helpful for crafting laws that respect not only its rights, but also those held by the pregnant woman. That's why so many women are up in arms, because they feel that their rights to their bodies are not being acknowledged. I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Simply admit it's a rights debate, and then do the difficult job of crafting laws respective of the rights of all impacted parties.dermdoc said:
Do you think life begins at conception?
That is all that this is about.
So do you think pro abortion women think life begins at conception?oldyeller said:That is not what this is all about. This is about what legal argument can support. Any emotion we have has to be cast aside to consider what we can prove, what reasoned argument supports, and what a fundamental respect for rights requires. Does life begin at conception, of course. But what type of life, and how does that life relate to fundamental rights? If you'd read any of my other posts in this thread you'd see that I contend that agreeing that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception doesn't solve the matter, especially not within any framework that is helpful for crafting laws that respect not only its rights, but also those held by the pregnant woman. That's why so many women are up in arms, because they feel that their rights to their bodies are not being acknowledged. I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Simply admit it's a rights debate, and then do the difficult job of crafting laws respective of the rights of all impacted parties.dermdoc said:
Do you think life begins at conception?
That is all that this is about.
oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
My point was that it is not an insignificant number, though most who label themselves "pro-life" try to characterize it as an insignificant number. The key number cited was the "among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year," which indicated that we can't simply shrug off those cases, and if we expand our sense of what "non-consensual" means that number is likely larger.Zombie Jon Snow said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
Uhhh no.
You seem to be claiming 5% of pregnancies are rape related. that's not even close and what you quoted does not even say that. It says 5% of rapes result in pregnancy ("pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape"). That's a vastly different number. And I've seen studies that put it closer to 3%.
The number of pregnancies that are rape related is actually lower than the conception rate for consensual sex - because of many factors including the trauma itself and the age of the victim (i mean i hate to say it this way but some are too old or too young to conceive). And the fact that about 1% of abortions are reportedly due to rape is likely low because they go unreported about 50% of the time.
Anyway it's a lot less than 5% but likely more than 1% of pregnancies.
oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Forced organ transplants did not enter into the SC debate, counselor.oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
I don't think anyone is "pro abortion," or at least not any meaningful number of people are into terminating pregnancies purely for the sake of aborting babies, and I don't believe it is productive to mischaracterize people if we actually wish to make any progress in our political debates. I believe most who identify as "pro-choice" maintain that abortion is an unfortunate necessity given the current state of our medicine and our politics, and when they contend that "life" begins will vary based upon a host of things, such as their religious views. Jews, for example, at least those who follow the Talmud don't believe life begins at conception, and Islam is somewhat comparable, generally maintaining that potentiality (ensoulment) occurs around 120 days after conception.dermdoc said:So do you think pro abortion women think life begins at conception?oldyeller said:That is not what this is all about. This is about what legal argument can support. Any emotion we have has to be cast aside to consider what we can prove, what reasoned argument supports, and what a fundamental respect for rights requires. Does life begin at conception, of course. But what type of life, and how does that life relate to fundamental rights? If you'd read any of my other posts in this thread you'd see that I contend that agreeing that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception doesn't solve the matter, especially not within any framework that is helpful for crafting laws that respect not only its rights, but also those held by the pregnant woman. That's why so many women are up in arms, because they feel that their rights to their bodies are not being acknowledged. I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Simply admit it's a rights debate, and then do the difficult job of crafting laws respective of the rights of all impacted parties.dermdoc said:
Do you think life begins at conception?
That is all that this is about.
I never stated they did, I'm trying to determine what conception of rights the various interlocutors are employing.dermdoc said:Forced organ transplants did not enter into the SC debate, counselor.oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
You know that.
What year of law school are you in?
Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
So Locke defines rights?oldyeller said:Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
oldyeller said:Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
Locke doesn't "define" rights, but he provides the articulation of rights which are relevant here. It is obvious that some want there to be an admission that rights are God given, which is Locke's contention, clearly reflected in Jefferson's plagiarism as well, and I have no objection to that characterization, but I doubt it will advance their arguments in the way they desire, and won't help to convince any non-theists one way or the other.dermdoc said:So Locke defines rights?oldyeller said:Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
What do you base that on counselor?
If you were a law school prof you'd understand the subtleties of the argument, and that it isn't solely based upon Locke's conception, but that Locke's notion of rights is a helpful starting point for public debate given those who have had to take any course in government offered in this country should be familiar with Locke, and the importance of his political theory to this country.dermdoc said:
If I was this guy's law school prof I would ream him as he deserves.
You can not pick any one person and base your entire argument on that.
Unless you want to lose a lot of cases.
Disagree.oldyeller said:Locke doesn't "define" rights, but he provides the articulation of rights which are relevant here. It is obvious that some want there to be an admission that rights are God given, which is Locke's contention, clearly reflected in Jefferson's plagiarism as well, and I have no objection to that characterization, but I doubt it will advance their arguments in the way they desire, and won't help to convince any non-theists one way or the other.dermdoc said:So Locke defines rights?oldyeller said:Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
What do you base that on counselor?
If I were a law professor and you brought this stuff before me I would laugh.oldyeller said:If you were a law school prof you'd understand the subtleties of the argument, and that it isn't solely based upon Locke's conception, but that Locke's notion of rights is a helpful starting point for public debate given those who have had to take any course in government offered in this country should be familiar with Locke, and the importance of his political theory to this country.dermdoc said:
If I was this guy's law school prof I would ream him as he deserves.
You can not pick any one person and base your entire argument on that.
Unless you want to lose a lot of cases.
Actually no, I have not concluded that bodily autonomy supplants the unborn child's right to life, I have simply noted that its right to life does not automatically confer upon it an entitlement to use of the woman's body against her will.dermdoc said:Disagree.oldyeller said:Locke doesn't "define" rights, but he provides the articulation of rights which are relevant here. It is obvious that some want there to be an admission that rights are God given, which is Locke's contention, clearly reflected in Jefferson's plagiarism as well, and I have no objection to that characterization, but I doubt it will advance their arguments in the way they desire, and won't help to convince any non-theists one way or the other.dermdoc said:So Locke defines rights?oldyeller said:Have you read Locke? If so, you will find your answer. Source doesn't change that a right to one's body is a fundamental right.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:Do you believe no one has a right to their body? If so, I'll ask again, do you support forced organ transplants, if it is your contention that there is no fundamental right to one's person?Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:The number of rape-related pregnancies is more like 5%, and likely higher if we consider under the heading of "non-consensual" all the occasions when women unwillingly engage in sex but do so to avoid a confrontation with their partner.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:No, you have not explained why or how the right to life automatically overrides, absent any other condition, the right to bodily autonomy. You haven't explained why women are, against their will, required to serve as life support systems in each and every case, save for when the pregnancy threatens their lives. If anyone is being intentionally obtuse in this exchange it is you. You strike me as one who simply parrots what they've been told, and who hasn't done any real thinking on the matter, and sits perplexed and befuddled when confronted by a rational argument that threatens your world view. That level of ignorant certainty is really a dangerous position from which to advocate laws over others.Aggie4Life02 said:oldyeller said:You might believe that, if you don't understand how to defend your position, or what your statements actually imply. Still waiting for you to provide an argument of substance, but it's starting to feel like waiting for Godot. But feel free to keep trying the weak ad hominems, circular reasoning, and poorly constructed syllogisms if that's all you've got.Aggie4Life02 said:
He is being intentionally obtuse.
The mental gymnastics people will go through in order to justify butchering children is amazing. You still don't see that you're the one that hasn't provided an argument of substance.
You have already conceded that the unborn have a right to life. Now the burden is on you to prove that women have a right to kill their unborn child.
The level of "debate" you have provided so far is the same as those on the left insisting that their safety is somehow jeopardized by the mere fact that others in the community lawfully and respectfully own firearms, and without even charitably considering opposing position insist that gun owners give up their right without giving so much as a word in defense of why they maintain their right to feel secure depends upon others giving up their fundamental freedoms, because their understanding of the issue is superficial and ill considered, much like yours appears to be. You have yet to provide anything resembling a valid or strong argument, have failed to explain what this amendment you have in mind would actually state, have provided nothing of substance to this exchange, and quite frankly have provided a poor defense for the pro-life position. Hell, you haven't even really been a good troll. So if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, this isn't even entertaining anymore. But good luck to you, and I'll pray that you will one day grow in wisdom.
This covers 99% of abortions. When a woman chooses to perform the very act that creates life, she is obligated to care for the life she creates. Whether it is her intent to create life isn't relevant. If the man did not intend pregnancy, does that remove his obligation to care for the child?
In the case of rape, the 1%, it is true that she did not choose to create life in that instance, however this still does not justify abortion, sine the person who foisted that life within her is the rapist, not the child. We don't punish the child for the sins of the father. God's justice requires that the rapist be put to death for his crime. Your view is that the unborn child should die instead.
An exception for rape also creates the moral hazard where women will be incentivized to claim a pregnancy is the result of rape when the pregnancy is unwanted. This will inevitably result in an increase in false allegations of rape.Quote:
The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. …. rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
Further, while I agree with you about what God's law dictates, we don't live in a theocracy, and hence are limited to our human laws, which in our western system rely upon consideration of rights, entitlements, and obligations. I made no suggestion that the unborn child be sacrificed in place of the rapist, but what I acknowledged was that it is wrong to force a woman to serve as life support for her rapist's child. While the child's innocence should not be ignored, to deny the mother access to an abortion in these cases demands explaining why she is obligated to use her body to provide life support to her rapist's child. That's the issue, because she has a right to her body, a right that was violated by her rapist, on what grounds does the state contend that she is obligated to carry that child to term, given she never consented to sex, and hence never willingly assumed the risk of pregnancy? It is effectively heaping insult upon injury, and that does not seem consistent with any conception of justice. Thus the difficulty you envision with enforcement doesn't change the inherent injustice of forcing a victim to mother her rapist's child. Difficulty with enforcement does not justify ignoring the rights of women in these cases.
All laws are based on morality. When you say a woman has a right to her body, how did you come to that conclusion? What standard are you using?
When you say Justice, whose standards of justice are you referring to?
If you'd read what I posted earlier, you'd understand that a Lockean notion of natural law is the standard I am employing, which includes respect for the fundamental right to life, liberty, and property, including property in one's own person:Quote:
every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html
Where do rights come from?
What do you base that on counselor?
The problem is that you are biased towards pro abortion and use folks who agree with you.
You have basically decided that bodily autonomy supersedes the rights of the unborn baby.
I disagree as did the SC justices.
No, but recognize that life is complex, truly difficult decisions have to sometimes be made, and justice and compassion both demand consideration of the fact that there are hard cases where exceptions may need to be made and the law should allow the woman and her physician in those cases to make the decision that is most appropriate and which most reasonable people would find permissible.dermdoc said:
So you are pro abortion?
It was a response, and a truthful one. Your failure to comprehend it is on you, not me.dermdoc said:
Non responsive counselor.
