Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

antiskeptic

lazygal wrote: »

Now, I went through all that because I wanted a baby. Can anyone give me a justifiable reason for making a 14 year old suicidal rape victim go through ANY of the above?

Nobody is making the rape victim go through any of the above. Other than the rapist.

_______


The 14 year old has a chance of overcoming the situation without abortion - were it that facilities were put in place focused on helping her do just that. The person being aborted has no chance of overcoming the abortion.

An alternative is to pronounce the person not a person and so swing the balance in favour of providing the 14 year old with an abortion.

Since worldviews are the way in which person/not a person is decided upon and worldviews differ, there is no way to "justify" your position other than to speak to the converted or convert others to your worldview.

And so the issue boils down to who can swing the vote in their favour. And for that, you engage in the process of vote winning.

Stark

Would you favour mandatory organ donations for compatible dying children? After all, your chances of living a successful life with only one kidney/piece of your liver removed etc. are pretty good. Those children have an equal right to life to adults after all.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nobody is making the rape victim go through any of the above. Other than the rapist.

_______


The 14 year old has a chance of overcoming the situation without abortion -

Care to explain what exactly that entails?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antiskeptic wrote: »

The 14 year old has a chance of overcoming the situation without abortion - were it that facilities were put in place focused on helping her do just that. The person being aborted has no chance of overcoming the abortion.

But there's a more fundamental concern. Quite reasonably, we'd deem a 14 year old to be unable to give consent. Even if she emphatically told us that she wanted to sleep with a 40 year old and have his baby we'd ignore it and deem the 40 year old to be a rapist if he took advantage of the situation.

A 14 year old just shouldn't be pregnant. Just too young; no need to say anything more on the topic.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to explain what exactly that entails?

People of all types become suicidal for all sorts of reasons. There are services that assist people in dealing with and overcoming considering suicide an option. The pregnancy would resolve itself in due course. The person would then have to deal with raising the child, giving it up for adoption. They would have to deal with the fact that they have been raped.

By overcoming, I don't mean no difficulty and I don't mean no scars. I mean that horrible things happen to people and people overcome them and get on with their life.

antiskeptic

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

A 14 year old just shouldn't be pregnant. Just too young; no need to say anything more on the topic.

But since she is pregnant I'm not sure what relevance her shouldn't being has to do with anything. All sorts of things shouldn't be but are. And it's the are that has to be dealt with

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

Would you favour mandatory organ donations for compatible dying children? After all, your chances of living a successful life with only one kidney/piece of your liver removed etc. are pretty good. Those children have an equal right to life to adults after all.

Nobody's taking away their right to life. A disease is.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.........

A 14 year old just shouldn't be pregnant. Just too young; no need to say anything more on the topic.

...a rather ridiculous notion, as the fact is that they have become pregnant and have indeed become pregnant due to a rape. As a result, there is a great need to keep speaking on the subject.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

People of all types become suicidal for all sorts of reasons. There are services that assist people in dealing with and overcoming considering suicide an option. The pregnancy would resolve itself in due course. The person would then have to deal with raising the child, giving it up for adoption. They would have to deal with the fact that they have been raped.

By overcoming, I don't mean no difficulty and I don't mean no scars. I mean that horrible things happen to people and people overcome them and get on with their life.

...not everyone can deal with it, not everybody can overcome such traumas and most certainly not everybody is able to "get on with their life".

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nobody's taking away their right to life. A disease is.

What difference does it make? Their life is dependent on another person's life and body. If it came to it, would you be happy for the State to have control over your body to save children's lives?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antiskeptic wrote: »

But since she is pregnant I'm not sure what relevance her shouldn't being has to do with anything. All sorts of things shouldn't be but are. And it's the are that has to be dealt with

Nodin wrote: »

...a rather ridiculous notion, as the fact is that they have become pregnant and have indeed become pregnant due to a rape. As a result, there is a great need to keep speaking on the subject.

Glad to have brought the two of you to a point of agreement, even if it's unfortunately just sharing a misunderstanding of my point.

Quite clearly, a 14 year old can be physically capable of becoming pregnant, and may do so. My point (which I thought was clear, but evidently isn't) is that you can't oblige a 14 year old to persist with a pregnancy - it's actually inconsistent with the formal position of stating that a 14 year old cannot give consent.

Even if someone wanted to argue that an adult must continue with a pregnancy, the same set of arguments just don't wash with 14 year olds. Whether she's suicidal or not, whether the father is 13 years old, whatever, she may simply be unable to deal with the situation of being pregnant - that's why she's unable to give consent. That's my point.

Nodin

.....I don't get what your point is.....

Da Shins Kelly

My cousin posted this article on her Facebook just now. It's about the terms we use regarding pregnancy, with the example being Kate Middleton's pregnancy. When the pregnancy is wanted, we refer to it as a "baby", but when it's unwanted we refer to it as a "foetus". Apparently our use of language in this situation, according to this particular writer, is reflective of our attempts to distance ourselves from the "moral monstrosity" that abortion creates.

It's a pro-life article, needless to say, and I am pro-choice, but it did get me thinking about the language that is used in debates like this.

http://www.dennyburk.com/why-arent-we-calling-it-the-royal-fetus/

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

...not everyone can deal with it, not everybody can overcome such traumas and most certainly not everybody is able to "get on with their life".

I didn't say they necesarily could. I said that a chance exists to overcome. Whereas the is no chance of the aborted overcoming an abortion.

You'd have to read the full post

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

People of all types become suicidal for all sorts of reasons. There are services that assist people in dealing with and overcoming considering suicide an option. The pregnancy would resolve itself in due course. The person would then have to deal with raising the child, giving it up for adoption. They would have to deal with the fact that they have been raped.

By overcoming, I don't mean no difficulty and I don't mean no scars. I mean that horrible things happen to people and people overcome them and get on with their life.

So - looks like we are back to a previous suggestion involving 'mental health' issues.

Yes - rape victims need counselling but not of the variety you are describing which, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, appears to be of the 'accept your fate [**** happens], have your rapist's baby when the pregnancy has - as you so charmingly put it- resolved itself[approximate time to resolve itself - 9 months] then either put it up for adoption [just walk away and move on] or raise it [sure who needs a Leaving cert or degree anyway - you a momma now gurl!]'.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

People of all types become suicidal for all sorts of reasons. There are services that assist people in dealing with and overcoming considering suicide an option. The pregnancy would resolve itself in due course. The person would then have to deal with raising the child, giving it up for adoption. They would have to deal with the fact that they have been raped.

By overcoming, I don't mean no difficulty and I don't mean no scars. I mean that horrible things happen to people and people overcome them and get on with their life.

Or she could just go to England and get an abortion. Some women don't want to have their rapists baby.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say they necesarily could. I said that a chance exists to overcome. Whereas the is no chance of the aborted overcoming an abortion.

You'd have to read the full post

...I read the full post.

You seem willing to take chances with womens lives.

antiskeptic

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Quite clearly, a 14 year old can be physically capable of becoming pregnant, and may do so. My point (which I thought was clear, but evidently isn't) is that you can't oblige a 14 year old to persist with a pregnancy - it's actually inconsistent with the formal position of stating that a 14 year old cannot give consent.

14 year olds give consent to all sorts of things all the time. And a 14 year old can be obliged to do all sorts of things (whethe or not they chose to fulfill the obligation placed on them)

Even if someone wanted to argue that an adult must continue with a pregnancy, the same set of arguments just don't wash with 14 year olds. Whether she's suicidal or not, whether the father is 13 years old, whatever, she may simply be unable to deal with the situation of being pregnant - that's why she's unable to give consent. That's my point.

I thought the issue is whether the State is obliged (legally, morally) to provide abortion services. Them not doing so isn't putting any obligation on the child to persist with the pregnancy - since the pregnancy will persist all by itself.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

...I read the full post.

You seem willing to take chances with womens lives.

Clearly.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

Or she could just go to England and get an abortion. Some women don't want to have their rapists baby.

Indeed.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clearly.

.....well, at least your honest.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So - looks like we are back to a previous suggestion involving 'mental health' issues.

Yes - rape victims need counselling but not of the variety you are describing which, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, appears to be of the 'accept your fate [**** happens], have your rapist's baby when the pregnancy has - as you so charmingly put it- resolved itself[approximate time to resolve itself - 9 months] then either put it up for adoption [just walk away and move on] or raise it [sure who needs a Leaving cert or degree anyway - you a momma now gurl!]'.

Your faith in the abilities of the psychological/psychiatric profession is noted.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your faith in the abilities of the psychological/psychiatric profession is noted.

And you've some alternative methodology....?

Stupify

If a rape victim chose to have the rapists child would the rapist have any rights to the child? Would he be able to prevent the girl from giving the baby up for adoption, would he have access rights to the child?

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

.....well, at least your honest.

I wasn't hiding my light behind a bushel.

The point of my post was suggest you can't justify your position nor can I. Worldview determines position and worldviews are justifiable only when they are evaluated against criteria of the persons own choosing.

It all ends in circular arguments.

And so the suggestion that the best way forward is to campaign as best you know how .. to win.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antiskeptic wrote: »

14 year olds give consent to all sorts of things all the time. And a 14 year old can be obliged to do all sorts of things (whethe or not they chose to fulfill the obligation placed on them)

Yes, but we specifically say that 14 year olds can't consent to sex. And that's not arbitrary - its because we reckon they're not mature enough to make the necessary judgment. There's also good, physical, reasons why a 14 year old should not proceed with a pregnancy.

Now, clearly, you can assert anything that takes your fancy. Bulletin boards never refused electrons. However, you cannot assert that a pregnancy of a child is the same as a pregnancy of an adult - because there's no legal barrier preventing an adult from either deciding to become pregnant, or from engaging in activity that might cause a pregnancy.

Do you see the point? You must do, it's glaring. You cannot argue as if the rights and responsibilities facing a pregnant adult and pregnant child are the same - because it's simply a fact that their rights and responsibilities are already agreed to be different. We've already agreed that children shouldn't become pregnant. Does that automatically mean that abortion is justified if a child "accidently" becomes pregnant? By default, I'd say yes. To maintain that abortion isn't justified in such circumstances requires explanation.

Why? Because we agree that children should not be allowed to consent to become pregnant. If we accept that principle, it seems to me ludicrous to maintain that a child can be forced to become pregnant, and be denied access to abortion in such cases.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

If a rape victim chose to have the rapists child would the rapsit have any rights to the child? Would he be able to prevent the girl from giving the baby up for adoption or have access rights to the child?

I could certainly see someone taking such a case. And in a mad, mad world, where anything can be redefined....why not?

Hotblack Desiato

Nodin wrote: »

And you've some alternative methodology....?

A good aul' pray?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could certainly see someone taking such a case. And in a mad, mad world, where anything can be redefined....why not?

It just seems like before people say that women should be having their rapists babies they should be arguing for legislation to prevent the rapists from having access to those babies.

Am I right in saying married couples cannot give a child up for adoption?

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't hiding my light behind a bushel.

The point of my post was suggest you can't justify your position nor can I. ........

I can. I put life before potential life, because to do otherwise is decidedly odd. In an ideal world, one would not have to choose between the two, however thats not the one we're in.

You might tell me what your alternative to "psychological/psychiatric profession" is. I'm most curious.