The mother stops mattering if her wishes clash with yours. My priority is the mother.
11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
The mother stops mattering if her wishes clash with yours. My priority is the mother.
One has to "matter" over the other...while the mother is the only one with the right and the capacity to choose which one.
Why is caring and saving the lives of two not superior to saving one?
I don't see defying or ignoring the wishes of a rape victim to be necessarily "caring."
elohiym
Well-known member
The unborn child doesn't matter to you at all.
The victim's wishes, one way or another, should take precedence. You're not even willing to make her a factor. I am.
elohiym
Well-known member
Do you oppose fetal homicide laws?
Third party ones..no; those that prohibit the mother's choice...yes.
elohiym
Well-known member
I'm not willing to let her kill another human just because she desires to kill another human. You are willing to let her kill a harmless, defenseless human because you think she should have that right.
Do you oppose fetal homicide law?
elohiym
Well-known member
It's not homicide unless someone else kills her unborn child?
Let's make one thing clear: What this woman would truly "desire" in this case is not to be raped. To portray our hypothetical rape victim as "desirous" to kill her child is border line hysterical and completely off-base. Remember the victim we're talking about here, or at least make an attempt to think about her longer than a New York minute.
You're not willing to consider the trauma of sexual assault, the age of the victim, or the double violation inherent to what you'd insist--to what you'd force--the victim to endure. It simply doesn't matter to you. It really, ultimately, does not--you literally couldn't care less that she's a rape victim and that you're prepared to take away yet another choice from her. It matters to me.
Not sure.
Yes.
elohiym
Well-known member
A woman that desires abortion, desires to kill her unborn child. The rape is beside the point.
Rather, I'm not going to kill an innocent child because her mother was sexually assaulted.
republicanchick
New member
If you ask the question: Should a 13 year old be legally capable of committing murder and getting away with it simply b/c the innocent person abides in her womb through no fault of his/her own.. well,
+++
The *wish* to intentionally kill her unborn child? THAT is the wish that you speak of. Because that is the ONLY option available. Counseling isn't a superior *choice* to killing one's own child ...
Yes.
More relevant to the issue of abortion:
Is refusing to sustain an incipient life homicide? Take for example a medical situation where you've denied me access to one of your kidneys, blood, etc. which results is my subsequent death........do you consider that a homicide?
Law has three modalities: 1. prohibition, 2. permission 3. command.
You're confusing the first and third modalities of law. To forbid or prohibit is to say: "Don't do x." To command something is to say: "Do x."
If there were a law that were to forbid doctors, the girl, etc. from committing an abortion, it remains precisely that: it's a prohibition. It says: "Do not do x." To forbid abortion is not the same thing as to command the giving of birth.
In point of fact, no command is necessary for this. It's going to happen naturally/of its own accord. It's not really the sort of thing that someone can just choose to do or not to do. It's not like playing chess or reading a book. Once the relevent circumstances are present, it's something that's just going to happen.
There is no coercion/force in the case of natural necessity. If I don't hold the stone up with my hand, I'm not forcing it to fall to the ground. It naturally falls to the ground of its own accord.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to say this: The law CANNOT command or forbid the giving of birth, since the law does not extend to matters of natural necessity. It can only forbid, permit and prohibit things that we are capable of doing. It can forbid, for example, rape. It cannot command or forbid the giving of birth which results from rape. Again, that happens by natural necessity.
It can, however, forbid abortion, ie., the murder of one's unborn child.
I'm not equating the "moral/legal percussions." You've misunderstood the analogy that I'm drawing. My point is that digestion happens according to natural necessity, and the doctor's refusal to pump my stomach does not imply that the doctor is forcing me to digest the hamburger. Even if the State forbade the doctor from pumping my stomach, this still wouldn't imply that the State is forcing my to digest the hamburger.
It's going to happen by natural necessity.
In this case, that's a logical impossibility. Whatever is, insofar as it is, necessarily is. Not even God can change the past.
The girl (let it be assumed) wishes to commit an abortion.
To commit an abortion is to terminate the life of one's unborn offspring.
To terminate the life of one's unborn offspring is to kill one's offspring.
One's offspring is one's child.
Therefore, the girl wishes to kill her child. QED.
Natural. Necessity. She doesn't have a choice. The only choice that she has is whether or not she's going to commit murder.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
It is not murder. Nothing you say will make it so. God has given to the governments of the world the authority to make laws; under those laws, in most countries, abortion especially for rape is not murder.