Questions for pro-lifers

[El Greco]

I don't mean this thread as another discussion on the (a)morality of abortion. I'm just curious about how skeptic pro-lifers would answer the following:

1) Are you against abortion in cases of rapes ?
2) Are you against abortion when tests show severe developmental problems of the fetus ? (we assume mother's life is not in danger)
3) Do you consider the emergency contraception ("morning-after" pill) to be abortion ? If not, why ?
4) Do you think that women who abort should be tried for murder ? If you answered "yes" in (3), what about those who have taken the "morning-after" pill ?

Edited to correct spelling error pointed by AV

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don't mean this thread as another discussion on the (a)morality of abortion. I'm just curious about how skeptic pro-lifers would answer the following:

1) Are you against abortion in cases of rapes ?

No. However, I am slightly more in favor of torturing the perpetrator.

2) Are you against abortion when tests show severe developmental problems of the fetus ? (we assume mother's life is not in danger)

I haven't decided on this one. Is it a case of convenience? I am not for terminating life just because it is inconvenient to the parents.

3) Do you consider the emergency contraception ("morning-after" pill) to be abortion ? If not, why ?

Yes, it terminates a human life. Was it emergency sex which caused the need for emergency contraception?

4) Do you think that women who abort should be trialed for murder ? If you answered "yes" in (3), what about those who have taken the "morning-after" pill ?

Why not? In the case of Scott Peterson, he was on trial for the murder of his wife and unborn son.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I think that there are important shades of meaning of "opposed to abortion". There's "it's a shame that happened", there's "that's morally wrong, but it should be legal", there's "that should be illegal", and many more opinions in between. Which is why I distinguish between "pro-life" and "anti-choice". Many people in the former category are not in the latter. Oh, and
"trial" comes from the verb "to try", of which the correct conjugation here is "tried".

peptoabysmal

Yes, it terminates a human life. Was it emergency sex which caused the need for emergency contraception?

Actually, it doesn't always terminate a human life; conception can happen a few days after intercourse. If the morning after pill is an abortificant, so is regular birth control. And sometimes it's taken after a rape, or a drunken act, or otherwise unplanned event.

Why not? In the case of Scott Peterson, he was on trial for the murder of his wife and unborn son.

"Why not" doesn't seem like a good reason to charge someone with murder, nor does mere precedent. It also seems to conflict with your position on the first question. Is it not murder if the woman was raped?

 

[kimiko]

I haven't decided on this one. Is it a case of convenience? I am not for terminating life just because it is inconvenient to the parents.

As one of my younger sisters has Downs, is severely retarded, cannot speak, is mostly deaf, and has a host of other health problems, I can say with some experience that a severely developmentally disabled child is not a case of "inconvenience". The vast majority of people don't have the faintest clue what kind labor is involved in caring for a child like that.

 

[Cain]

I don't mean this thread as another discussion on the (a)morality of abortion. I'm just curious about how skeptic pro-lifers would answer the following:

1) Are you against abortion in cases of rapes ?
2) Are you against abortion when tests show severe developmental problems of the fetus ? (we assume mother's life is not in danger)
3) Do you consider the emergency contraception ("morning-after" pill) to be abortion ? If not, why ?
4) Do you think that women who abort should be tried for murder ? If you answered "yes" in (3), what about those who have taken the "morning-after" pill ?

Edited to correct spelling error pointed by AV

Lemme add one more:

5) Should miscarriages be reported to the police?

 

[hammegk]

1) no
2) no
3) no. Just another roll of the dice.
4) no
5) no

 

[Fengirl]

If a pro-lifer's answer to question 1. ("Are you against abortion in cases of rape?") is “No”…then I’d be interested to understand more about the basis of their pro-life stance.

It has always seemed illogical to me that pro-lifers who base their position on a “sanctity of life” argument are willing to make an exception for rape cases. Why?

If you are in the camp that would deny a woman the right to choose whether or not she bears a child…why is it relevant to you whether or not she consented to intercourse? And what difference does that make to the status of a fetus?

Just curious.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

5) Should miscarriages be reported to the police?

Absolutely, it's manslaughter at least. Also, if you catch a woman doing something that could potentially harm the baby, call the cops!

~~ Paul

 

[TragicMonkey]

If a pro-lifer's answer to question 1. ("Are you against abortion in cases of rape?") is “No”…then I’d be interested to understand more about the basis of their pro-life stance.

It has always seemed illogical to me that pro-lifers who base their position on a “sanctity of life” argument are willing to make an exception for rape cases. Why?

If you are in the camp that would deny a woman the right to choose whether or not she bears a child…why is it relevant to you whether or not she consented to intercourse? And what difference does that make to the status of a fetus?

Just curious.

And I've encountered some who were against it in cases of rape, unless the rape was incestuous, in which case it was not only okay but preferable.

Ick factor?

 

[Magyar]

I personaly can't see a reason for a selective 3rd trimester abortion.
However, no medical proceedure exists (even in the experimental stage) that is capable of sustaining or supporting a 1-2 or 3 month old fetus to term exect the womb.
As a pro-lifer you are claiming that
1) your moral value is supperior to the mothers and must be inforced on the mother.
2) that since the fetus is incapable of survival on it's own, but must be protected, the mothers life becomes secondary.
How is this NOT at least servitude or slavery?

If you argue that she made the choice - how does this change or how do you justify it in the case of incest and rape?

If the "sanctity of life" takes precidence over even rape and shild molestations why not carry this to it's logical conclusion?
One of my friends is on the transplant list for a kidney. Family and friends are not a match. Why not make it mandatory that all crhistians register and be tested for kindey and liver and force those who match to donate!

After all, UNLIKE that 4 week old zygote, you ARE capable of surviving on your own with a single kidney and your kidney will actually regenerate to pre-donation size and function in approximately 2-3 months!

Where is the sanctity of life here??????

 

[wolfgirl]

Yes, it terminates a human life. Was it emergency sex which caused the need for emergency contraception?

There is a big difference between the morning-after pill (emergency contraception) and the abortion pill (RU-486). Are you aware of that?

 

[pgwenthold]

If a pro-lifer's answer to question 1. ("Are you against abortion in cases of rape?") is “No”…then I’d be interested to understand more about the basis of their pro-life stance.

It has always seemed illogical to me that pro-lifers who base their position on a “sanctity of life” argument are willing to make an exception for rape cases. Why?

If you are in the camp that would deny a woman the right to choose whether or not she bears a child…why is it relevant to you whether or not she consented to intercourse? And what difference does that make to the status of a fetus?

Just curious.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. It seems to me that such a situation would indeed be a case of "anti-choice" as opposed to anti-abortion. Since they can accept abortion under certain circumstances, there must be something else that is being objected to here.

Let's keep going with that. Why make an exception for incest? Note this is not incestual rape, since rape is already covered. But why should there be an allowance for consensual incest? Because of a chance of genetic problems? Shoot, they won't accept abortion in the case of established genetic problems, so why should "possible" genetic problems be sufficient?

 

[Fengirl]

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. It seems to me that such a situation would indeed be a case of "anti-choice" as opposed to anti-abortion. Since they can accept abortion under certain circumstances, there must be something else that is being objected to here.

Let's keep going with that. Why make an exception for incest? Note this is not incestual rape, since rape is already covered. But why should there be an allowance for consensual incest? Because of a chance of genetic problems? Shoot, they won't accept abortion in the case of established genetic problems, so why should "possible" genetic problems be sufficient?

My confusion is really with pro-lifers who base their opposition to abortion on the special status of the fetus, i.e. it must be protected because “it’s a human life” or “it’s a potential human life” and therefore killing it is an absolute wrong.

If you follow that through logically, then the circumstances under which the fetus was conceived are utterly irrelevant. Even if a 13 yr old girl is brutally gang-raped, a “sanctity of life” pro-lifer ought (logically) to deny her an abortion. The same for incestuously-conceived pregnancies. The status of the fetus is unaltered by the circumstances of the conception.

However, most people I know who hold a pro-life position would find that idea abhorrent…and yet, isn’t it the logical conclusion of the “special status” argument?

(I’m not asking just to be argumentative…I really do want to understand how people can hold that position and reach a different conclusion)

And if pro-lifers DO make an exception for rape cases…on what basis do they do so? If it is an acknowledgment that rape relieves the woman of any culpability for the unwanted pregnancy…isn’t that tantamount to admitting that the denial of abortion in non-rape cases is, in fact, a moral punishment on the woman?

 

[Cleopatra]

Let me say that I have listed my anti-abortion views in Luke's thread about the extreme views I happen to hold. Extreme views are rarely rational but I will give it a try to reply to your questions. Maybe that way I will change my views on the matter.

1) Are you against abortion in cases of rapes ?

No I am not because whether you have been raped or fully enjoyed sex with your partner the pregnancy is unwanted once you have decided the abortion. The state though must take care of the child that will be born though by securing an adoption.

2) Are you against abortion when tests show severe developmental problems of the fetus ? (we assume mother's life is not in danger)

In all sincerity I cannot answer this question.I will never BUT NEVER forget though a case when I was a volunteering as a laweyr of the Greek Church. A mother with 3 retarded kids came to us and I still don't know if I had hated her for keep bringing sick children to life or pitied her. Who are we to judje on other people's behalf?

Do you consider the emergency contraception ("morning-after" pill) to be abortion ? If not, why ?[/quote}
No. I don't know if my reasoning stands but everytime you have sex without precautions you don't get pregnant. Let's say that the "morning-after" pill is a pre-emptive measurement.

4) Do you think that women who abort should be tried for murder ? If you answered "yes" in (3), what about those who have taken the "morning-after" pill ?

Hmmm. This is easy. Every person who violates the law should face Justice.

 

[Mercutio]

Absolutely, it's manslaughter at least. Also, if you catch a woman doing something that could potentially harm the baby, call the cops!

~~ Paul

I wrote a "modest proposal"-type letter to the editor once, advocating a 9 month protective custody prison sentence for all pregnant women. Got some very interesting feedback for that one...

 

[Mark]

Given that any sexually active woman is flushing fertilized eggs most every month (look it up) how does this affect the "Right to life" argument? Are all sexually active women serial killers? Is God a serial killer?

Millions more fertlized eggs are lost this way than will ever happen through abortion.

 

[kimiko]

Let's keep going with that. Why make an exception for incest? Note this is not incestual rape, since rape is already covered. But why should there be an allowance for consensual incest? Because of a chance of genetic problems? Shoot, they won't accept abortion in the case of established genetic problems, so why should "possible" genetic problems be sufficient?

This is a very good point.

 

[Mycroft]

As one of my younger sisters has Downs, is severely retarded, cannot speak, is mostly deaf, and has a host of other health problems, I can say with some experience that a severely developmentally disabled child is not a case of "inconvenience". The vast majority of people don't have the faintest clue what kind labor is involved in caring for a child like that.

Playing devil's advocate, would it be okay to kill her now to spare your family the burden of caring for her?

 

[kimiko]

Playing devil's advocate, would it be okay to kill her now to spare your family the burden of caring for her?

JEsus christ!!!! Of course not!! Now that would be a matter of convenience...

 

[American]

1) I am against rape.
2) I want babies to be healthy, if possible.
3) I consider all contraception to be very slutty and crude.
4) Abortive women should not be tried for murder, but I fully support degrading gossip about how they couldn't keep their legs closed.

[/redundant "I'm serious" flag]