Todd Akin wants abortion banned for rape victims

[vicious796]

There is so much wrong here that I can't even begin to quote it all. I step out for a few weeks because my wife had - ironically - a baby and this is what I come back to? My Lord.

Science falls on both sides of this argument fairly evenly - stop trying to say "pro-lifers" work only with religion. Don't dismiss the scientific fact that a zygote is the only known biologically living entity (parasite as it may be) that has the potential to become human life or try to convince yourself that the argument is about anything other than human life. Don't fall on the stereotypical American bandwagon of thinking something is stupid because someone else made fun of it - or even if you can come up with a quip of your own.

The absolute truth in the matter is that we do not know much about human development from the moment of conception til the 3rd trimester - as much as both sides of the argument try to claim they do. Why? Testing on unborn fetuses is illegal in many corners of the globe and, where it isn't, it's expensive and tricky to do.

Jesus, why is it that people who cry out for tolerance are the most intolerant of all?

[elvikun]

@Vicious
How is you having a baby ironical? Did someone came to you while your wife was pregnant and told you you have to abort it now, unless you are interested in going into prison? If the answer is no, then it is not an irony.

I also don't think anyone denies that a zygote has the potential to become a human being eventually, but whether you treat it a as a human or a simple parasitic cell growth is another question, which we won't answer here, obviously, as it is about an opinion. And admittedly, it is not -only- about religion, it is just almost exclusively about religion.

Point is: Live and live (if you excuse the pun), You are entitled to your views and opinions, you may practice them, you may spread them, but you cannot force others to live by them. That is just no good.

On a sidenote, claiming you have the truth, invoking Jesus and calling people intolerant in the same post... is an irony.

[AceHigh]

Well in my mostly atheistic country the debate doesn't split between religious people and ateists. That is why I haven't been bothered commenting in that direction.

From what I have seen it's those human-ethic groups that mostly make the group against abortions. Some time ago I read about their idea of handling unwanted children: to put them up for adoption, sometimes before birth since there are many couples that want a child, but can't.

I can imagine that in big countries like USA the "supply" is much bigger than the demand, so this alternative is not applicable in their cases.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

Well in my mostly atheistic country the debate doesn't split between religious people and ateists. That is why I haven't been bothered commenting in that direction.

From what I have seen it's those human-ethic groups that mostly make the group against abortions. Some time ago I read about their idea of handling unwanted children: to put them up for adoption, sometimes before birth since there are many couples that want a child, but can't.

I can imagine that in big countries like USA the "supply" is much bigger than the demand, so this alternative is not applicable in their cases.

That doesn't really fix anything, because you'd still force a real person to lose a year of life, endure pain, high chance of permanent body damage and small chance of death.

As for the religion part, there is a big difference between early and and late pregnancy abortions, while I'd say the ban of late-term ones is mostly motivated by valid reasoning, early-term is by religious beliefs. And frankly, it makes sense that way.

[AceHigh]

Granted, my example isn't not so fitting because it's not about forcing anyone, but providing an alternative... a persuasive method. But I see that the topic is about ban on abortions, not actual help to the victims.

[elvikun]

Granted, my example isn't not so fitting because it's not about forcing anyone, but providing an alternative... a persuasive method. But I see that the topic is about ban on abortions, not actual help to the victims.

Well, it has gone astray a bit, which might be better than talking about a guy who believes that only woman who wanted to get raped can get pregnant from being raped and wants to legislate it.

Putting up for adoption and filling up orphanages already working over 100% capacity is a way to deal with an aftermath of banning an abortions, but it's not an alternative.
Then the problem runs deeper, seeing how numbers of kids for adoption is much higher than the number of people wanting to adopt, but that might be a topic for another time.

[Goldfrapp]

This is like stepping into the fire. And here I walk right in.
Some of you have written very good post about the subject.


I think EVERY woman, rape or not, should have the possibility to choose abortion if they feel this is the right action.

Therefor, the poll should be changed to:
Every woman has the right to have an abortion.  And the answers should be: Yes or Indifferent.

Deciding if your going to have an abortion is NOT an easy decision. It takes a lot of thinking and work. It is not something you do because you want to take life.  It is something you do because you (hopefully) are desperate.
No politicians should be allowed to decide it, it should be up to the women who is pregnant.


I don't think it is right under any circumstances: If your having an abortion, it should be done withing the 12 first weeks of pregnancy, since its considered a fetus the 12 first weeks, and you actually can't be sure it will survive anyways. Second, they try to save babies that are born in week 23, so there is need for a limit of how late you can get one. If your a victim of rape and abuse, the laws should be different. How they should be, I can't tell.

However, there should be some sort of limits to it... I don't think it is ok if you have several abortions. Learn how to protect yourself if you don't want to get pregnant.
If you get raped or abused, it is a different story.
(On the other hand, your kinda fucked up in your mind/lifestyle/IQ if you have multiple abortions, and one can start to questioning if you should have kids at all. I'm gonna leave it to that, because it is a debate I don't want to go into tonight.)

[Ixarku]

If someone is dying and needs a new liver to survive, nobody has the legal obligation to give this person their one, not even if there is only one person on earth whose blood-type is compatible with him and it just so happen to be his/her parent, not even if this is the result to a road accident and his/her parent was one of the two drivers. You are simply of no legal obligation to give part of your body to someone else, especially if it would impact your own health.
Do you see where I'm coming? Pregnancy forces a women to provide part of her body to a fetus, in a way that could irreversibly damage her health or even kill her, rarely, and yet if she wants an abortion it's usually because the pregnancy is part of an accident.

Some people try to refute this argument by pointing out that the women was only taking this risk to gain sexual pleasure (except in the case of a rape) and so she should take the responsibility of her act, but again, if a driver is using his car to go eat an icecream, he's also taking a risk just for to gain some culinary pleasure and yet if someone gets hit by his car and the victim needs a new liver, nobody is trying to force him to give his own.

Just to be clear, you realize I'm pro-choice, right?  Most of what I've been arguing about for the last few days has been what I think is probably the only comendable to thing to come out of the pro-life side, which is a respect for life.  On the basis of that respect for human life, I see abortion as immoral in some circumstances, but there are lots of compelling reasons to mitigate or negate that.  Just like there are a lot of reasonable reasons to terminate the life of an adult.  My opinion is that abortion is a personal decision that the state should have no say in, at all.  It should be up to each individual to decide what's right for them to do in their situation.  I don't think any woman should be forced to carry a child she doesn't want.  But I may be very critical or judgemental of a woman who acts in a way that I think is irresponsible.  Which is also fine -- everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it stays as nothing more than an opinion.
 
What I vehemently disagree with on the pro-lifers is the arrogant attempt to force their moral outlook on other people.  I've had several long discussions recently with different people about the use of hyperbole to manipulate people, something which I consider to be offensive and reprehensible, and the pro-lifers are very guilty of engaging in this.  So while I agree with certain pro-life perspectives, my own beliefs are fundamentally at odds with the methods & objectives of the movement itself.

[elvikun]

Forgot to mention it before, but fun facts, pro-life movement is also for "traditional place of women in the family" and absolute majority of members are men. You just have to love those guys.
But yeah, before someone says it - not everyone who calls themselves "pro-life" is in the actual movement or cares enough to check what is it about.

However, there should be some sort of limits to it... I don't think it is ok if you have several abortions. Learn how to protect yourself if you don't want to get pregnant.

I actually like that idea, let's forbid women to have abortions if they have more than a 3 within 10 years and castrate men who cause more than 3 pregnancies withing 10 years. Would be a lot cooler than the "Woman who is having sex is a slut and deserves whatever is comming to her!" and "Man who is having sex with 10 different women is a stud, respect dude!".

[Ixarku]

I actually like that idea, let's forbid women to have abortions if they have more than a 3 within 10 years and castrate men who cause more than 3 pregnancies withing 10 years. Would be a lot cooler than the "Woman who is having sex is a slut and deserves whatever is comming to her!" and "Man who is having sex with 10 different women is a stud, respect dude!".

I think if it's a man who causes more than X pregnancies without assuming any financial or parental responsibility for his offspring, he might deserve castration.   Or at least a good, solid ass-whuppin' followed by some legal action.

[vicious796]

@Vicious
How is you having a baby ironical? Did someone came to you while your wife was pregnant and told you you have to abort it now, unless you are interested in going into prison? If the answer is no, then it is not an irony.

I also don't think anyone denies that a zygote has the potential to become a human being eventually, but whether you treat it a as a human or a simple parasitic cell growth is another question, which we won't answer here, obviously, as it is about an opinion. And admittedly, it is not -only- about religion, it is just almost exclusively about religion.

Point is: Live and live (if you excuse the pun), You are entitled to your views and opinions, you may practice them, you may spread them, but you cannot force others to live by them. That is just no good.

On a sidenote, claiming you have the truth, invoking Jesus and calling people intolerant in the same post... is an irony.

I never once claim to have the truth nor do I invoke Jesus (obvious expression in the English language is obvious). The obvious irony was that the biggest thread I come back to after having baby is an abortion thread.

[Burkingam]

I'm a softy and I wouldn't go that hard on women who had more than two abortion. On another hand, I would make intrauterine devices available for free and I would strongly suggest any woman who had an abortion to get one. It's the most effective reversible form of contraception(except abstinence if you think that counts) and it's particularly good for women who are too disorganized to take the Pill every day without fail, in other words, women who are the most likely to get an abortion.

[Ixarku]

Now birth control -- that's a wonderful thing.  It astounds me that anyone would be opposed to such a thing.  I am 100% behind making various forms of that available for both men & women, and I've got no problems funding that with taxpayer dollars.  Show me an adult or adolescent human being who isn't interested in sex and I'll show you an individual that has some real issues.  Birth control is a hell of a lot cheaper than babies and welfare.  Abstinence is a pipe dream, and only someone who is seriously out of touch with reality would advocate it.

[Nikkoru]

Birth control is a hell of a lot cheaper than babies and welfare.

There's also the relative social and fiscal cost in criminal behaviour, policing, and imprisonment -- all of which have some correlation.

There is no logical reason not to subsidize both birth control or abortions, really. Not from a risk management or utilitarian approach to governance.

[megido-rev.M]

Now if they always applied logical reasoning, perhaps they would get somewhere, quicker.

[occasional]

[elvikun]

I never once claim to have the truth nor do I invoke Jesus (obvious expression in the English language is obvious). The obvious irony was that the biggest thread I come back to after having baby is an abortion thread.

It is very common expression in spoken language in certain countires (rather than English) indeed, not that much in written language and definitely not in a written topic bordering on religion. Also, claiming it's your opinion what is right is not bad thing, don't misunderstand that, it's just that what you put before and after it matters, name of religious icon at the start and statement about intolerance at the end just make it look a bit dubious.
The fun part is that I'm not really sure what your opinion is apart from that the zygote can become a human, which is not really an opinion.

(click to show/hide)

I actually like that idea, let's forbid women to have abortions if they have more than a 3 within 10 years and castrate men who cause more than 3 pregnancies withing 10 years. Would be a lot cooler than the "Woman who is having sex is a slut and deserves whatever is comming to her!" and "Man who is having sex with 10 different women is a stud, respect dude!".

I think if it's a man who causes more than X pregnancies without assuming any financial or parental responsibility for his offspring, he might deserve castration.   Or at least a good, solid ass-whuppin' followed by some legal action.

Well, that was mostly a joke, even tho it would be somewhat fair approach.
The important thing a lot of people forget around this topic (not this forum topic) is that the fact is abortions  were performed, are performed and will be performed as long as human race will have sex and let's face it, that will be as long as humans exists as we know them.
So the question on hand is not "Will there be abortions or no?", it's about whether it will be fast, easy, safe and clean or hard and possibly dangerous. That's where it turns back to the control complex.

[Burkingam]

The important thing a lot of people forget around this topic (not this forum topic) is that the fact is abortions  were performed, are performed and will be performed as long as human race will have sex and let's face it, that will be as long as humans exists as we know them.
So the question on hand is not "Will there be abortions or no?", it's about whether it will be fast, easy, safe and clean or hard and possibly dangerous. That's where it turns back to the control complex.

I'm sorry but you are committing the perfect solution fallacy. If I thought abortion was baby killing, I'd point out that even if there is still women who manage get one, we might be able to reduce the number of instances.

It's the same logic by which, for example, we persecute drunken drivers. We all understand that some people are still gonna drive when they drink even if we make it illegal, but we are still doing it because we hope to make it rarer.

In my case, really, the main reason that convinces me is that first trimester babies can not be considered "sensible beings" and therefore, they don't have they right to receive an ethical treatment. The second argument that I find valid, but not quite as strong is that there are conditions for which it's better for a baby to not be born and the mother is often the best qualified person to judge.

[Nikkoru]

The important thing a lot of people forget around this topic (not this forum topic) is that the fact is abortions  were performed, are performed and will be performed as long as human race will have sex and let's face it, that will be as long as humans exists as we know them.
So the question on hand is not "Will there be abortions or no?", it's about whether it will be fast, easy, safe and clean or hard and possibly dangerous. That's where it turns back to the control complex.

I'm sorry but you are committing the perfect solution fallacy. If I thought abortion was baby killing, I'd point out that even if there is still women who manage get one, we might be able to reduce the number of instances.

It's the same logic by which, for example, we persecute drunken drivers. We all understand that some people are still gonna drive when they drink even if we make it illegal, but we are still doing it because we hope to make it rarer.

Not exactly, drunk driving is illicit due to potentially deadly consequences to the general public-- using laws and police to minimize this is self-evidently beneficial. This would be more akin to prohibiting alcohol on the assumption that it is morally hazardous, addictive, and poisonous with over-consumption. The obvious retort is, that certainly we'd rather people remain sober for a variety of reasons, but the logical consequences of outlawing liquor were and would be more destabilizing and socially corrosive than the present activity.

You may not reduce the number of instances of abortion through incrimination, as you'd lack the capacity to acquire such information to form that hypothetical argument. Furthermore,  the fundamental position that abortion is a social fact, like suicide, is indisputable. Arguing for a complete ban ignores the long history of women's illicit abortive procedures which have lead to dramatic health consequences not limited to death when preformed outside of competent and legally bound medical professionals.

Whereas drinking and driving laws are the only pragmatic solution to achieving the intended ends of preserving people from harm caused by intoxicated drivers -- both the life with the driver and their potential victim(s) -- banning abortion will have an unknown rate of mitigation and a likely outcome of substantial harm to women. The reason it was made legal in the first place was because laws were not a preferred viable solution, that seems obvious.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

The important thing a lot of people forget around this topic (not this forum topic) is that the fact is abortions  were performed, are performed and will be performed as long as human race will have sex and let's face it, that will be as long as humans exists as we know them.
So the question on hand is not "Will there be abortions or no?", it's about whether it will be fast, easy, safe and clean or hard and possibly dangerous. That's where it turns back to the control complex.

I'm sorry but you are committing the perfect solution fallacy. If I thought abortion was baby killing, I'd point out that even if there is still women who manage get one, we might be able to reduce the number of instances.

It's the same logic by which, for example, we persecute drunken drivers. We all understand that some people are still gonna drive when they drink even if we make it illegal, but we are still doing it because we hope to make it rarer.

In my case, really, the main reason that convinces me is that first trimester babies can not be considered "sensible beings" and therefore, they don't have they right to receive an ethical treatment. The second argument that I find valid, but not quite as strong is that there are conditions for which it's better for a baby to not be born and the mother is often the best qualified person to judge.

I don't see the fallacy. Unless you are considering abortion a crime at the first place. Which I don't and I'd like to believe that most people don't, no matter whether they are supporting it or declining the idea.
Of course if you take something we consider criminal and put a bigger charge on it, the number of people doing it will get smaller, on the other had, if you take something that is not a crime and make it into a crime you are just stripping away rights.

Better example than drunken drivers would be prohibition. People stopped drinking? Not at all, just the black market got really big and the overall quality of alcohol decreased.
In a similar way, you make abortion a real crime, number of suspicious doctors and medicines arise, as well as people travelling elsewhere to get the procedure. Now think long and hard whether you truly believe that especially the poor who won't be able to afford it this way should be forced to have kids. Or even better, try to make "homemade" abortions.

Especially in the US (but generally everywhere), it would be helpful to educate people more about sex and anticonception methods, rather than banning abortions.
It's not very surpirsing tho, that societies which ban abortion often treat sex and anticonception as a taboo, or even ban it along with abortions.

Either way, women always get the short end of the stick here.