They try to spin out of the reality but there is something punitive about this.
Last edited:
11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
They try to spin out of the reality but there is something punitive about this.
Homicide is the legal term.
Simply? Can you show us that it is not more?
And this is acceptable to moral beings?
What makes birth the benchmark for humanity/personhood?
Only if one intentionally wishes to devalue the innocent, unborn baby by labeling him/her as *punishment*.
Because we all know the first words the Obstetrician says to the mother upon delivery of her child is "Congratulations, it's a punishment!".
If you remove any opportunity to think on her own or make an independent decision, you are implicitly devaluing the mother. Like I said, this hypothetical's kind of a lose-lose situation all around.
An independent decision that intentionally kills her unborn baby? What is the child guilty of?
The father, certainly. Execute him. Imprison him. In an active volcano. Whatever.
The mother is guilty of nothing and should receive the same amount of support and protection as her unborn baby. I have yet to hear an argument that would explain why having TWO lives flourish rather than one life linger on as the other is intentionally snuffed out is superior.
That sidesteps the issue I'm talking about.
He's not a factor here.
...unless of course she chooses not to continue the pregnancy, at which point you don't care what she says or thinks or wants to do. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. Right or wrong, your stance makes the mother secondary.
I'd counter that this is not our decision to make given the hypothetical. At least, it shouldn't be. Like I've said before, there does seem to be something intuitively wrong in imposing yet another decision on a sexual assault victim. Our will be done whether she likes it or not. That doesn't ring true to me.
That's like talking about forcing someone to digest food that he ate earlier (either willingly or unwillingly). You're confusing acting and not acting.
It would be as though you forced me to eat a hamburger, and I complained that a doctor was forcing me to digest the hamburger by refusing to pump my stomach of its contents.
Er...no. The doctor isn't acting. He's refusing to act. I'm not being forced to digest anything (except, of course, to the extent that I was forced to eat the hamburger in the first place). The digestion is happening of its own accord.
What has to happen for the rape victim to give birth? I.e., what human intervention is necessary in order for the pregnancy to come to term? None. It happens on its own.
To speak of "forcing" someone to give birth is just a sophistical/rhetorical flourish with no grounding in reality.
elohiym
Well-known member
It makes the mother's desire to terminate the life of another human secondary to the right of the other human to life.
Via choice, her's would be made. Don't expect me to pat anyone on the back and hold their hand as they intentionally snuff out the life of their unborn baby.
No. It. Does. Not. Two lives are superior to one. Being a victim does not mean one needs to share her victimization by intentionally killing her unborn baby.
It doesn't need to *ring true* to you. Either unborn babies are worthy of protection or they are not.
The circumstances of the conception should never be the determining factor of a child's value.
You remember we're talking about a hypothetical rape victim, right?
Nobody "shares the victimization" of a rape victim. And yes, if you'd prevent her from having more than one option, you are superseding a sexual assault victim's body and choice--again--and this is definitely a punitive measure.
I think there are instances where the circumstances absolutely need to be considered.
She becomes a vessel at this point, not an actual human being. The scales seem out of whack.
elohiym
Well-known member
Rather, she remains human and necessarily must accept that her unborn child living in her is human, too.
And there's the rub. She doesn't matter anymore.
elohiym
Well-known member
If I don't let her kill another human, she doesn't matter any more? Come on.
So she only matters if one is willing to tell the mother to be that her child is a monster and it's hunky dory to snuff them out?
If I don't murder x (a spouse, let us assume), then I won't collect the insurance money. Why does nobody respect my wishes to gain money? I'm being forced to go without the insurance money. :mmph:
If her wishes are contrary to yours she doesn't really matter. She's incidental.
It could even be argued her rapist has more influence over this situation than she does. That's a two-fold violation.
No, no, and no. Usually you're better than this.
While I'm sure she could find an accommodating doctor ...this entirely misses the mark. The doctor's (non)action is only incidental to the force in question here.
What Oz (and perhaps you) propose is a legal or religious prohibition on abortion that would effectively require this girl to give birth against her will via explicit force of law and/or religious doctrine. The doctor, as such, is simply a means to a forced ending.
If you can so easily equate the moral/legal repercussions of (hamburger) defecation against that of giving birth...then I don't know what to tell you. :chuckle: Nonetheless, considering the stark moral/legal bearing upon the issue at hand, she is clearly forced in the birth scenario.
Speaking of which..............
lain: