abortion after rape

[raja]

this is a very touchy subject and it is very personal but i would like to offer my opinion on it with an open mind. Abortion after rape: well, let's disregard the statements of a fetus not thinking for itself yet and blah blah...and think of ourselves in the child's point of view. It did not choose to be conseived from an act of hate. Although the rape itself is a horrible and traumitizing experience to the woman...I bring myself back to the latter statement, IT did not CHOOSE to be conseived from an act of hate. It seems like a harsh approach to this issue but there is plenty of counsiling for this terrible experience (that i wish upon no one to have to endure) and there are many woman who have had their rape child and loved him/her anyway because of "Natural Law" and maternal instinct. This does not apply to everyone, granted all women are different, but it does go to say that if one gets counciling and does ALL she can to get through this trauma emotionally and psychologically she will find that it is possible to deliever this beautiful pure child into this world...who may very well be (hypothetically speaking) the discoverer for the cure for HIV or Cancer even. I guess my point here, which may sound insensitive or not understanding is that, despite the harshness of rape and it's post emotional scars, a woman, unfortunately is no longer alone in this, she has an unborn child involved now and it is innocent and as unbearably hard as it may be to carry this child, it will see your face when it is born and still think you're the most beautiful thing. My final thought...Once the child is conceived it's no longer an "what am I going to do now?" "How am I going to handle this?" "How is this going to make ME feel?" because lets face it...it's no longer just YOU involved it is you AND your unborn child, and life is unfair and harsh and morbid and twisted but sometimes you have to GET HELP and GET THROUGH these twists and turns, to reach the beauty. Discarding a PROBLEM or running from it, as hard as it is to have...is never the way to handle things...what reward comes of that?

[remedios]

So women shouldn't be allowed to abort the results of consensual sex because "they got themselves into it," and now they shouldn't be allowed to abort the results of rape either because it's not the fetus' fault that its dad's a rapist?

Are you mad?

Just when, oh when, does what the woman wants come into this?

Apparently neither when the sex was consensual, nor when it was coerced.

Do you EVER believe a woman should be able to put her foot down and say, that's enough! Does she ever get a choice?

All I can say is THANK THE POWERS THAT BE that you and your fanatical kind will NEVER have power to dictate what happens after a rape.

Oops! I take that back. You might, if you convince 95% of the population to think as you do. Then we'll officially be living in the Christian version of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

[MO]

You're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that women should not abort children who are the result of consensual sex "because they got themselves into it." It's just wrong to justify murder for the sake of convenience. Frankly, I have issues with the death penalty too. But if we are going to allow a woman one free kill for the sake of her trauma, it ought to be the rapist. Why should an innocent child pay for the sins of her father? After all, it's her child too.

[raja]

this reply is for remedios. I want to address both issues that you mentioned and defend my statement. First, a woman most definately has a say and a right when concerning consentual sex. That right is exercised when she CHOOSES to have sex and take upon the risk of pregnancy that goes along with it. Once that CHOICE is made, the right should end, in my opinion. Now the second issue, where you missed my point completely, is about when a woman is raped. NO, she didn't ASK to get raped, just as a parent doesn't ask that their children be murdered or abused, or a man doesn't ask that his son get killed in a car accident, etc...Just as I didn't ASK to get violated when i was 18. But the harsh, insensitive truth of reality is that these things happen. Woman are raped, kids abused and murdered, or killed in a car accident...I was violated, and the truth of it is that proper counciling can get a person through these things, its not the easiest path but nothing in life is. So looking at this issue in a different, more logical light, just as there is a negative with every positive, there is also a positive with every negative, whether it be a lesson learned or a physical gift. So if a woman aborts her unborn child, where exactly does that leave her and her child? Well lets see, it leaves that innocent child in a jar, and the mother in the same emotionally scarred state that she was in to begin with but now with an ADDED post abortion trauma that many and most women take years if ever to get through. In other words, it leaves a double negative (an unborn child dead and a mother even more traumatized.) Now if the woman chose to have the child, (which with the proper counciling is possible and HAS been done) she saves a pure innocent being (1st plus) and when that child is born (not knowing the circumstances of it's conception) will love her anyway, (2nd plus) and even if the mother couldn't keep the child and gave it up for adoption, the point here is that it will still have a CHANCE. A chance to live and breath and exist. And THAT...is a true positive.

[Ender312]

Well said raja

[thetruth]

Agreed.

[remedios]

this reply is for remedios. I want to address both issues that you mentioned and defend my statement. First, a woman most definately has a say and a right when concerning consentual sex. That right is exercised when she CHOOSES to have sex and take upon the risk of pregnancy that goes along with it. Once that CHOICE is made, the right should end, in my opinion.

Which I've ALREADY summed up quite nicely. We disagree on this, but whatever. In this thread, you make what I see as the absolutely disgusting suggestion that women shouldn't have a choice even when raped.

Now the second issue, where you missed my point completely, is about when a woman is raped. NO, she didn't ASK to get raped, just as a parent doesn't ask that their children be murdered or abused, or a man doesn't ask that his son get killed in a car accident, etc...Just as I didn't ASK to get violated when i was 18. But the harsh, insensitive truth of reality is that these things happen.

And this is a reason to make abortion illegal in cases of rape why???

So if a woman aborts her unborn child, where exactly does that leave her and her child? Well lets see, it leaves that innocent child in a jar, and the mother in the same emotionally scarred state that she was in to begin with but now with an ADDED post abortion trauma that many and most women take years if ever to get through.

Actually, if I were raped, an abortion would leave me in the same emotionally scared state that I was in because of the rape, but with ONE LESS THING TO REMIND ME OF THE MONSTER WHO ASSAULTED ME.

What you don't seem to understand is this: some women are only emotionally attached to the unborn children they've planned and want. For these women, forcing them to give birth to their rapist's child would be MORE TRAUMATIZING than the rape itself. Believe it or not if you like, but not everyone thinks as you do, nor would they despite "proper counseling."

Now if the woman chose to have the child, (which with the proper counciling is possible and HAS been done) . . .

Which I have no objection to whatsoever. As soon as you start suggesting that the choice to do this should be anyone's other than the woman who's just been raped, however, I have serious problems with you, for the reason that for some women, you might as well shoot them in the head. Thank god (colloquially of course) that most rational people see this.

[raja]

remedios: it was nice that you only quoted half of my reasoning as to why abortion should not be the right thing to do even when raped, and made it look like it was the whole basis of my argument.
"some women are only emotionally attached to the unborn children they've planned and want." So what you're saying here is that because only "some" woman are emotionally attached to the child if they want it instead of if they're raped (which according to natural maternal instinct, doesn't hold true most of the time), that we should keep it legal, based on "some" women. Okay, well while we're at it, why don't we legalize murdering homeless people because only "some" people don't value them as a person. In this country the majority seems to over power minorities (even if that isn't always the best thing) so if we're basing the legality of this issue on your statement of just "some" women than that wouldn't quite cut it, would it?
And also, "Actually, if I were raped, an abortion would leave me in the same emotionally scared state that I was in because of the rape, but with ONE LESS THING TO REMIND ME OF THE MONSTER WHO ASSAULTED ME."

--you insinuate that i am not rational when YOU are calling a child a "THING" and referring to it as just a reminder rather than a gift. One who is rational views things from all sides and sees which out weighs the other. And sorry to say but unfortunately abortions DO leave women with trauma, what they do to that woman is NOT as easy as a routine surgery and many, many woman regret it just simply because of the post depression and the violent actions that take place in THEIR uteras through the same entrance that the assaulter entered. And also, thinking that a child is just a thing and a reminder of a rapist is very much conjured by the mind and can be (once again) COUNCILED through therapy and looked at in a very different way (as therapist tend to do with patients and their fears and depressions all the time, find the root and get them to see things in a different, easier light). Getting help as apposed to killing a child isn't unheard of.

[remedios]

remedios: it was nice that you only quoted half of my reasoning as to why abortion should not be the right thing to do even when raped, and made it look like it was the whole basis of my argument.

Do even you know what this means???

So what you're saying here is that because only "some" woman are emotionally attached to the child if they want it instead of if they're raped (which according to natural maternal instinct, doesn't hold true most of the time), that we should keep it legal, based on "some" women.

Yes.

Okay, well while we're at it, why don't we legalize murdering homeless people because only "some" people don't value them as a person.

Everybody values their own lives, including homeless people. That's why murder is illegal.

A fetus does not value its own life. PERIOD.

--you insinuate that i am not rational when YOU are calling a child a "THING" and referring to it as just a reminder rather than a gift.

I do no such thing. What I did when I wrote that is to express MY opinion. I am entitled to MY opinion, and also have certain inalienable rights, which happen to include the right to have control over my own body (i.e. liberty). While this right is not unlimited, it CERTAINLY includes not having to suffer impregnation whenever someone else feels like it, which is what would happen if abortion became illegal even after rape.

And sorry to say but unfortunately abortions DO leave women with trauma . . .

And those women should not have had abortions. If you're suggesting that ALL women who have abortions are traumatized, you're simply wrong. I myself am proof of this.

And also, thinking that a child is just a thing and a reminder of a rapist is very much conjured by the mind and can be (once again) COUNCILED through therapy and looked at in a very different way . . .

And while we're at it, why don't we brainwash everyone into being a Christian?

If a woman has been raped and doesn't want to keep the kid, she shouldn't have to just because some bible-thumping fanatic like you is fakely attached to "life." It should be her choice. You are a truly sick individual if you imagine that you should be able to do anything BUT try to counsel her to keep it. The final decision HAS to be hers. And some women, even after all your counsel, will say "HELL NO!"

[raja]

To remedios: My Quote:And also, thinking that a child is just a thing and a reminder of a rapist is very much conjured by the mind and can be (once again) COUNCILED through therapy and looked at in a very different way . . .

--and this quote says i'm a trying to brainwash people with christianity where?

Quote:remedios: it was nice that you only quoted half of my reasoning as to why abortion should not be the right thing to do even when raped, and made it look like it was the whole basis of my argument.


--Well lets see, if i put those words together, wouldn't that mean i understand them? A cheap shot taken at someone's wording is a prime example of weakness in an argument, hense you have nothing better to reply with but a "problem" with my oh so confusing sentence.

Let me make it more "understanding" for you. I thought it was weak of you to quote only part of my statement on this issue and make it look like it was the whole basis of my argument.

"Everybody values their own lives, including homeless people. That's why murder is illegal.

A fetus does not value its own life. PERIOD."

--the sad part of your statement is that it is full of conradiction. A fetus is a LIVING organism, and like anything alive, it wants to continue to develop. The action of murder, (which I'm sure you know) is to kill something brutally, or put an end to. SO, by putting an end to the growth of a child would be considered murder. If MURDER to people is illegal, what makes this MURDER any more just?

If anyone's life should be taken it should be the assaulter's rather than the most innocent out of the two.

:Quote by me--you insinuate that i am not rational when YOU are calling a child a "THING" and referring to it as just a reminder rather than a gift.



Responce by you--"I do no such thing.What I did when I wrote that is to express MY opinion.

--Yes you DID such a thing. The fact that it was YOUR opinion emphasizes my point. That it was specifically YOU irrationally referring to a developing human as a "thing" and nothing more. I wonder if women who "wanted" their child would view it as just a "thing" while it's inside their womb. Why talk your stomach and rub it when all that's inside is a "thing"


My Quote:And sorry to say but unfortunately abortions DO leave women with trauma . . .

--does this sentence say ALL women? I don't see that significant word, do you? It says exactly what it says.

"If a woman has been raped and doesn't want to keep the kid, she shouldn't have to just because some bible-thumping fanatic like you is fakely attached to "life.""

--There has never been mention of God or the bible in my arguments, PLEASE stop those silly self created thoughts you seem to enjoy responding with, and maybe you'll see the pro-lifer's REAL attachment to life.

[remedios]

There is ZERO logical or philosophical support for banning abortion even after rape besides a belief in God or a secular system of belief which consistently addresses human problems with encouraging respect for "life" (of all kinds) in mind. If you are claiming to be pro-life on other than religious grounds, you need to come up with the latter of the two possible foundations for such a ban.

Please summarize your secular "life-preserving" system of beliefs.

If you do not, I'm going to assume you're full of it.

[raja]

"...However, moral action is never the result of a mere act of the understanding, nor is it the result of a simple desire which views objects merely as things which produce pain or pleasure. We start with a rational conception of what is advantageous, but this conception is in itself powerless without the natural impulse which will give it strength. The will or purpose implied by morality is thus either reason stimulated to act by desire, or desire guided and controlled by understanding. These factors then motivate the willful action. Freedom of the will is a factor with both virtuous choices and vicious choices. Actions are involuntary only when another person forces our action, or if we are ignorant of important details in actions. Actions are voluntary when the originating cause of action (either virtuous or vicious) lies in ourselves.

Moral weakness of the will results in someone does what is wrong, knowing that it is right, and yet follows his desire against reason. For Aristotle, this condition is not a myth, as Socrates supposed it was. The problem is a matter of conflicting moral principles. Moral action may be represented as a syllogism in which a general principle of morality forms the first (i.e. major) premise, while the particular application is the second (i.e. minor) premise. The conclusion, though, which is arrived at through speculation, is not always carried out in practice. The moral syllogism is not simply a matter of logic, but involves psychological drives and desires. Desires can lead to a minor premise being applied to one rather than another of two major premises existing in the agent's mind. Animals, on the other hand, cannot be called weak willed or incontinent since such a conflict of principles is not possible with them. " --Aristotle's teachings (philosopher)

Natural Law is most definately philosophical and it deals with natural maternal instincts of women to their children no matter what circumstances of conception. It also deals with the NATURAL LAW of human existence that humans MORALLY shouldn't kill eachother.

I myself am a spiritual person, not strongly into any specific religion, MOST CERTAINLY not a BIBLE-THUMPER (as was ignorantly stated), but very open to philosphical and psychological aspects on life and the human mind, including it's ability to decipher right from wrong. I do not bring religion into my argument because i believe abortion isn't just RELIGIOUSLY wrong, but ethically and MORALLY wrong, there IS a difference. And religion is too highly a controversial subject with not much proof to it than what the individual feels and the bible...which isn't enough proof for a lot of people. THAT is why I DON'T PREACH my christianity to ANYONE, but philosophy and psychology are different, more grounded ways to view life and natural morals. So yes, philosophy may not directly cover abortion but it does cover morality and what that entails (including the murder of a unborn human.)

"...The human soul has an irrational element which is shared with the animals, and a rational element which is distinctly human. The most primitive irrational element is the vegetative faculty which is responsible for nutrition and growth. An organism which does this well may be said to have a nutritional virtue. The second tier of the soul is the appetitive faculty which is responsible for our emotions and desires (such as joy, grief, hope and fear). This faculty is both rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct ability to control these desires with the help of reason. The human ability to properly control these desires is called moral virtue, and is the focus of morality. Aristotle notes that there is a purely rational part of the soul, the calculative, which is responsible for the human ability to contemplate, reason logically, and formulate scientific principles. The mastery of these abilities is called intellectual virtue. " ---Teachings of Aristotle.

--this i threw in just to SIGNIFICANTLY state how animals and HUMANS do differ in their morals and otherwise.

[remedios]

Moral weakness of the will results in someone does what is wrong, knowing that it is right, and yet follows his desire against reason.

I KNOW that abortion is of no more moral significance than killing a cow. Having an abortion has no more moral significance than going to a slaughterhouse and killing a cow so that one can have a hamburger.

Natural Law is most definately philosophical and it deals with natural maternal instincts of women to their children no matter what circumstances of conception.

You have still not defined what "natural law" is. How are its statutes defined? What is its authority? Nature shows us that female mammals often terminate pregnancy or kill their BORN young when resources are scarce. Nature also fails to support monogamy in males. Are you next going to argue that men shouldn't have to be faithful to the mother of their children? Natural law, as I understand it, is a piss-poor guide to anything.

It also deals with the NATURAL LAW of human existence that humans MORALLY shouldn't kill each other.

You're really going to have to explain "natural law," better than you have.

I myself am a spiritual person, not strongly into any specific religion, MOST CERTAINLY not a BIBLE-THUMPER (as was ignorantly stated) . . .

As was mused, you mean. All you have to do is correct me. No need to get your panties tied in a knot.

. . . but ethically and MORALLY wrong, there IS a difference.

Ah, yeah. I know. And, by the way, you still haven't given a cohesive answer about why abortion is ethically wrong.

THAT is why I DON'T PREACH my christianity to ANYONE . . .

So I was right about the Christian part, just not the bible-thumping? Pssst- if you're running around trying to argue that women who've been raped should be forced to keep the resulting baby, then you are bible-thumping. Dressing your crud up in secular-sounding terms doesn't change that a bit.

. . . but philosophy and psychology are different . . .

Not when they come from the mind of MOST Christians.
You have yet to explain how you're different.

The human soul . . .

As I don't believe in "the human soul," none of what followed this was of interest, or, for that matter, convincing.

--this i threw in just to SIGNIFICANTLY state how animals and HUMANS do differ in their morals and otherwise.

It's nice that you added something to illustrate what you BELIEVE, but, as I do not recognize it as authoritative, you'll have to do better than Aristotle. You should be able to ground your argument in first order principles that are undeniably true. If you can't, I'd say you don't have much of an argument.

[raja]

"Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality. We will be concerned only with natural law theories of ethics: while such views arguably have some interesting implications for law, politics, and religious morality."


"When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas's natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). "


"For while on the Hobbesian view what is good is what is desired, Hobbes thinks that humans are similarly constructed so that for each human (when he or she is properly biologically functioning) HIS OR HER CENTRAL AIM IS THE AVOIDANCE OF VIOLENT DEATH. Thus Hobbes is able to build his entire natural law theory around a single good, THE GOOD OF SELF-PRESERVATION, which is so important to human life that exceptionlessly binding precepts can be formulated with reference to its achievement."

--these are a few takes on natural law. But the creation of many governmental laws are derived from the basis of this law of ethics. It is backed by many well known and accounted philosophers such and Thomas Aquianos, Descarte, who is a well known mathematician as well, and Plato, etc...

There is also the FACT that the human brain carries a membrane that controls the conscience of a human and his or her ability to decide right from wrong, naturally, without religious influence. There are plenty of atheists that are perfectly nice, ethical, morally granted people. And also, ONCE AGAIN...since you seem to be thickly oblivous to this fact that i DO NOT preach christianity, never quote the bible or use religion to back ANY of my comments up, let alone the fact that i have NEVER even read the bible. You're sore perception of my arguement is sad. You have a destinct milead view that when mentioning morals of an issue, that automatically means religious morals, well now you can clearly see that there is much more backing natural morals of a human being than religion.

Your Quote "I KNOW that abortion is of no more moral significance than killing a cow. Having an abortion has no more moral significance than going to a slaughterhouse and killing a cow so that one can have a hamburger."

--"...Animals, on the other hand, cannot be called weak willed or incontinent since such a conflict of principles is not possible with them. " and also

"...This faculty is both rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct ability to control these desires with the help of reason. The human ability to properly control these desires is called moral virtue, and is the focus of morality."

These are all distinct reasons why abortion, (murdering a human organism) is not as morally significant to slaughtering animals, although there is morals to that action as well (which i have my opinions about, but are irrelevent in this board), it is not an equally moral issue because there is a difference between humans and animals that goes beyond the food chain. And even if one believes it is morally equal, that doesn't ignore the fact that those issues as well as the others you've listed, like death penalty and so on are all morally significant on some level and ignoring these morals are obviously not the "Right" thing to do. But as i've said before those issues should be dealt with seperately and abortion is the murdering of a human organism who's aim is to maintain survival, justifying this is impossible.

[raja]

oh and also,

My Quote:I myself am a spiritual person, not strongly into any specific religion, MOST CERTAINLY not a BIBLE-THUMPER (as was ignorantly stated) . . .



As was mused, you mean. All you have to do is correct me. No need to get your panties tied in a knot.

--yes was mused, but still ignorant for the sole reason that you STATED, twice actually, this naive comment that was, once again unresearched and of poor judgment. You don't like false assumptions about yourself and what you say and are defensive of your thoughts as am I so maybe you should be the one not to get your panties in a knot over your contadictions.