Well then, the next time you're hungry I hope someone hands you a plate of rotten food, as I suggested represents welfare. All crimes punish victims. That's why they are crimes. Isn't that obvious? You can't unrape a rape victim. That in itself is a life sentence. Killing the child of a rape doesn't unrape the victim. What is it before it's born, a piano? Go ahead and tell a woman who's had a miscarriage that what she lost was not a child. See how that works out for you.
So would you deny her the right to use the day after pill? If your definition is that it's a child at conception. Are you willing to suffer any and all of the possible complications of pregnancy with her? If she developed gestational diabetes, can we medically induce diabetes on you? If she has to have a Cesarian, can we open you up as well? If she gets fired from work, will you quit work? If she dies in labor, will you kill yourself?
I hope you're being deliberately obtuse. I obviously meant What law punishes the victim for a crime?. But that was a sneaky way for you to try and make it look like you don't want to punish the victim which is exactly what you want to do. You can't unrape a victim but wanting her punished for being raped for the rest of her life IS like raping her over again. Rape is all about force, control and disrespect and loathing for women....so is banning abortion.... Well , why don't you use the word piano, it makes about as much sense. It's a fetus that's aborted, not a teenager nor a toddler nor a senior nor a pogostick nor a child. Irrelevent, she is free to call it anything she likes but it was a fetus that was miscarried. And that has nothing to do with a woman's right to abort.
And I've pointed out multiple times now that you are begging the question. When have I refused ANY ASSISTANCE? What I disagree with is the way YOU think they should be assisted. I find it far more grotesque that you would discount the rights of a life that is innocent of any crime, and would absolve the rapist for any responsibility for the production of that life. Far more grotesque than that is is the use of the existence of violent crimes against woman as a facade to justify policies responsible for a genocide of minority, low income, and special needs children that have been produced not out of violence, but out of irresponsibility.
I'm not against Plan B. I'm also not against intervention to save the life of the mother How does killing myself resolve the issue of a mother who dies in labor? Do you think one violent act undoes another?
It's interesting to me that this entire argument hinges on technology, not philosophy, ethics, reason. The argument could not exist without the technology necessary to prevent a woman from being "punished" by a rape. The argument about personhood of the child would not exist without the geographic differences in prenatal technology. Can someone please explain to me philosophically or morally how anyone other than the rapist is to blame for the consequences of a rape?
Why are you trying to blame the woman? SHE isn't to blame, the rapist is the ONLY person to be blamed.
No - you potentially put every woman at risk with your stance on abortion - women die every die from complications of labor - so if you are going to force a woman to go to term then you should have to share the risk. A woman who has been raped and you force her to go all the way through labor? You have to share the risk. Are you willing? Didn't think so. If men could get pregnant, we would never be having this discussion.
You have to first prove the fundamental basis of your thesis to be true before you can start postulating anything else. Moreover, I find it completely hilarious you would insist a rapist, with a proven propensity to be a scumbag, would actually support the kid - do you also support the rapist having access to the kid? lol. Pathetic. A fetus is not an individual nor does it have the same rights as the mother, and until you prove that point, your entire argument is sand in an hourglass, slipping away.
No, we wouldn't, and no male should even really have an opinion on the matter unless it's a personal issue. The problem isn't the fundamentalist social conservatives. The problem is, like with islam, the fundamentals of conservatism. It engenders itself entirely too much to authoritarian hateful bigotry.
Hypocrisy in this case would be using children as a prop when there's a mass shooting and then turning around and demanding that a woman should have the right to slaughter an unborn child in the womb.
Interesting, considering he contributed half of the genetic material. Remind me again, how is that fair?
Sure, but you'll regret demanding the facts. ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins
And as for yours, your whole premise defies the definitions set by science itself. I have been on enough political forums and abortion debates to understand that you aren't able to employ science as an effective argument. The incessant mewling about the law pertaining to Roe, while correct legally, is invalid, because science defies the laws of men and hastily made political opinions. I have more facts at my disposal.
I'm sorry, but have you not heard of the method of birthing called the Cesarean Section? If a woman is at risk of dying through traditional childbirth, that procedure is designed to save both the mother and the child's life. Egads, the intellectual and scientific ignorance I have encountered thus far in this thread is astounding.
Who is being punished? Who is the victim? I let you in on a little secret... They both are. You are punishing and victimizing the woman by making her decide the fate of an unborn child she didn't choose to conceive, and then you are punishing and victimizing the potential life that would come about because it wasn't conceived in a manner in which the mother saw fit by exterminating it.
NO one is making the woman do anything except the Anti-Choicers who, like rapist, want to FORCE her to have the kid. She isn't FORCED to decide, it is her RIGHT to decide. So you wish to PUNISH the woman for being raped by forcing her to endure a pregnancy and child birth?!!!! ..... like extremist Muslims...
Based off the fact that we have words for things, it's an old custom, check it out....science and law call a fetus a fetus, it is not a teenager nor an adult...there are stages in life and one is not a "child" until birth....it's not a kumquat before birth no a princess nor a bun, it is a fetus......you can DENY science but that won't change anything
Daniel Light said: ↑ No - you potentially put every woman at risk with your stance on abortion - women die every die from complications of labor You did not, could not , refute one word of the poster you quoted....his statement is correct and a C-section is NOT always the answer and has it's own problems.....how EASY for you to dictate the medical choices of others all without any medical training whatsoever... .................the intellectual and scientific ignorance I have encountered thus far in this thread is astounding YES! DOCTORS have heard of C-sections and would, I'M sure , consult with YOU from now on for your advanced medical knowledge...
