11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[Desert Reign]

How is that different from descriptive moral relativism?

That may be true in some cases, but in this case I believe the enforcement of the immutable law against murder (by prohibiting abortion) strictly prevents injustice. And even if I was convinced that it didn't strictly prevent injustice, I would still have to concede that it prevented a far greater amount of injustice than it caused.

Thank you DM for actually responding to my post.

To your first question, the context (usually) dictates what is right and wrong. You don't get that choice. That is why it is not moral relativism. Moral relativism has a bad name because it provides little guidance on how to act in lifesituations, but surely moral absolutism is no better. In my experience moral absolutes fail you in at least 50% of real life situations. You get the worn out examples of what to do if you are hiding Jews from Nazis and someone asks you are Jews being hidden in your house. Do you lie or do you tell the truth? Calvinists say that conflicting moral absolutes occur because we live in a fallen world and if we get stuck in such a situation, we will have to sin whichever way we go; but, they say, there is no need to worry because if we ask, God will forgive us. What a load of horse ****. Not only is it right to lie in that situation but it is required. The context demands it. Proving that the absoute moral rule that lying is wrong - is wrong. You can say that about any absolute moral rule, thus proving that every rule breaks down in life situations. So what's the point in having any? Moral relativism provides you with too little guidance on what to do and effectively gives you a free for all. But moral absolutism gives you wrong guidance half the time.

As to your second point, I understand. But I am not saying that it would be right for this 11 year old to have an abortion. I don't actually know. I voted yes to the poll because I wanted to give her that choice as it is her context, not mine. Because if you take her choice away, you have imposed a moral absolute on her and we get back to the point I made above.

 

[Desert Reign]

Why does being raped give you a right to kill an innocent person? That doesn't make any sense. Its easy to make an emotionally charged argument for such, but its impossible to defend logically.

Well, I don't believe it necessarily does. But the question was not 'Is it right to abort a baby conceived by rape?' It was 'Should abortion be allowed by law to an 11 yr old girl who has been raped?' The way I see it, that's two separate questions.

 

[csuguy]

I wrote small bunch of cells. More cells allows the complexity needed to support the functions required to maintain the personality of a person. Small bunches of cells don't have that, do they?

Why should the number of cells matter? Does having more cells make one more human? Should a large person's rights come before those of smaller individuals - simply because of the difference in cell count?

And the "small" bunch of cells are simply in the earliest stages of human development, that we all went through. The personality might not be there yet but that is what the cells are working on.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I don't believe it necessarily does. But the question was not 'Is it right to abort a baby conceived by rape?' It was 'Should abortion be allowed by law to an 11 yr old girl who has been raped?' The way I see it, that's two separate questions.

I can see such a distinction far more often than most people do, but we're talking about the rights of an innocent person here. How does the unborn child magically lose their right to life just because his/her mother was raped?

I support less government intervention than pretty much anyone here, but I do believe the law should intervene if someone is trying to commit murder, even if they were raped.

My answer remains "No."

 

[Desert Reign]

I can see such a distinction far more often than most people do, but we're talking about the rights of an innocent person here. How does the unborn child magically lose their right to life just because his/her mother was raped?

It's not magical. It depends on the context. She was 11, she is emotionally and physically traumatised and is in no position to bring up a child or perhaps even to physically bear one. She is a child herself, not even a teenager, let alone an adult. Perhaps she will grow up hating her child, which will be bad for both of them, let alone the baby. Moral absolutes are not magic either. They can bind you to slavery. They bind wives to their husbands who beat them, they impoverish people who cannot afford to give their money away, they lead people into wrong careers and get them fired from work and all sorts of other evils. Because they give wrong guidance 50% of the time.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's not magical. It depends on the context. She was 11, she is emotionally and physically traumatised and is in no position to bring up a child or perhaps even to physically bear one. She is a child herself, not even a teenager, let alone an adult. Perhaps she will grow up hating her child, which will be bad for both of them, let alone the baby. Moral absolutes are not magic either. They can bind you to slavery. They bind wives to their husbands who beat them, they impoverish people who cannot afford to give their money away, they lead people into wrong careers and get them fired from work and all sorts of other evils. Because they give wrong guidance 50% of the time.

Excellent post :cheers:

 

[Tambora]

It's not magical. It depends on the context. She was 11, she is emotionally and physically traumatised and is in no position to bring up a child or perhaps even to physically bear one. She is a child herself, not even a teenager, let alone an adult. Perhaps she will grow up hating her child, which will be bad for both of them, let alone the baby. Moral absolutes are not magic either. They can bind you to slavery. They bind wives to their husbands who beat them, they impoverish people who cannot afford to give their money away, they lead people into wrong careers and get them fired from work and all sorts of other evils. Because they give wrong guidance 50% of the time.

I get it, man.
Tribulations in our lives our bound to happen. And many of those tribulations are due to our kids!

But we don't murder our children because they cause us tribulation.

 

[Desert Reign]

A4T: thanks.

But we don't murder our children because they cause us tribulation.

'Kill', Tambora, 'kill'.

 

[WizardofOz]

It's not magical. It depends on the context. She was 11, she is emotionally and physically traumatised and is in no position to bring up a child or perhaps even to physically bear one. She is a child herself, not even a teenager, let alone an adult. Perhaps she will grow up hating her child, which will be bad for both of them, let alone the baby. Moral absolutes are not magic either. They can bind you to slavery. They bind wives to their husbands who beat them, they impoverish people who cannot afford to give their money away, they lead people into wrong careers and get them fired from work and all sorts of other evils. Because they give wrong guidance 50% of the time.

What is she was 13? 15? 18?

What if an 11-year-old gets pregnant through consensual sex?

 

[Christian Liberty]

A4T: thanks.




'Kill', Tambora, 'kill'.

No, what you're advocating is murder. Killing that is not murder is either justifiable or not deliberate.

Murdering an innocent child in the womb is never justifiable.

As for hatred of the child, the mother can have whatever emotions she wants, but she can't commit murder.

 

[Tambora]

'Kill', Tambora, 'kill'.

Yeah, it's killing.
Killing someone that did nothing to deserve being killed.
That's murder.

 

[Lighthouse]

lain:

My reaction is:

 

[Arsenios]

It's not magical. It depends on the context. She was 11, she is emotionally and physically traumatised and is in no position to bring up a child or perhaps even to physically bear one. She is a child herself, not even a teenager, let alone an adult. Perhaps she will grow up hating her child, which will be bad for both of them, let alone the baby. Moral absolutes are not magic either. They can bind you to slavery. They bind wives to their husbands who beat them, they impoverish people who cannot afford to give their money away, they lead people into wrong careers and get them fired from work and all sorts of other evils. Because they give wrong guidance 50% of the time.

11 is awfully young...

In utero is younger...

Should not the moral focus be to preserve BOTH lives?

Would that not open a much broader venue of possibility?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yeah, it's killing.
Killing someone that did nothing to deserve being killed.
That's murder.

:thumb:

Arsenios

 

[Desert Reign]

No, what you're advocating is murder. Killing that is not murder is either justifiable or not deliberate.

Murdering an innocent child in the womb is never justifiable.

Can you see why what you have written above is illogical?

I pointed out to you earlier that the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill'. That's what it says. But you immediately found two very good exceptions to that, self-defence and capital punishment.

Murder is a crime by definition. But that doesn't advance the argument. It is obvious that you are good at thinking up situations where the commandment in the Bible doesn't apply. My question is simply this: is it not permissible to think up a few more?

 

[Desert Reign]

Yeah, it's killing.
Killing someone that did nothing to deserve being killed.
That's murder.

So would you also reject the idea that you can abort to protect the life of the mother? You are still killing an innocent baby in that situation.

 

[Arsenios]

Can you see why what you have written above is illogical?

I pointed out to you earlier that the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill'. That's what it says. But you immediately found two very good exceptions to that, self-defence and capital punishment.

Murder is a crime by definition. But that doesn't advance the argument. It is obvious that you are good at thinking up situations where the commandment in the Bible doesn't apply. My question is simply this: is it not permissible to think up a few more?

As a General Rule
The Exceptions
Prove the Rule

So if you are a lover of diverse exceptions, all you need do, as a general rule, is to show how they prove the rule...

Exempt such provings on your part, you are then left with attacking the Rule openly and honestly...

And arguing: "Thou shalt kill or not, according to thy will..."

Or do you have a third and more illuminating alternative???

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

...

 

[Arsenios]

...

 

[Arsenios]

So would you also reject the idea that you can abort to protect the life of the mother? You are still killing an innocent baby in that situation.

We do live in a fallen world, where Good and evil are intermixed, don't we? Spending some time in the Garden in Genesis can illumine much of what you are up against...

But here, the exception proves the rule, because killing the mother kills ALL the children she otherwise could have had... The life of the mother, you see, is the cause of many lives, so that the cause is more important than the effect, in physical terms, because with the cause intact, the effect can be engendered...

Yet you slipped that little word protect in there, which was a sneaky thing to do... Childbirth entails risk to the mother, and your protect would justify all abortions... So here, one must say SAVE the life of the mother...

Arsenios