quote:

ORIGINAL: girl4you2


killing another person is murder; it's either murder 1, 2, or manslaughter, but it's still murder. motives don't count until you decide what kind of murder it is. if you kill, you murder. basic fact.
 
No it isn't. Killing does not necessarily mean murder.


so how is it different just because of what happened before the right-to-lifers claims of murder? the fetus dies whether it's justifiable homicide or not under their thinking. it doesn't matter if it's rape or consensual. it's still the same thing, yes?

so why do the right to lifers rope off this area as okay? if they don't believe in taking a life, they don't believe in it. why do they waver according to this circumstance or that?

Why do the right to aborters use sweeping, general and inaccurate statements?

you see, it's not such an easy thing as black and white. as in most of life, it's shades of grey. what happens in any given circumstance is very individual. perhaps one girl who is gang raped thinks she should keep the baby. perhaps another girl who had unprotected sex, or whose birth control method failed (they all fail at some percentage or another other than total abstinance), has mitigating circumstances which would lead her to have severely impaired health herself or put the fetus at risk if she continued the pregnancy. who is to decide whether she would be allowed to have an abortion? she and her doctor, or someone holding a book who has no idea of what is going on in this situation? most women who decide to have an abortion do not come by the decision easily.

there's an old saying that might be appropos here: you never know whose shoes are pinching them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullfigRIMaam

I wasn't trying to step in on a serious note since I don't have the energy these days, but my position remains that: as soon as all the born are taken care of, given homes, and a decent living/chance at life by the pro lifers, I'll join and become a pro lifer... This isn't news to you level, since we've done this discussion before.  
As to partial birth abortions, sounds a tad on the cruel and tormenting side to the doer even, so I cannot say I'd have major issue with it being ruled illegal.   M

Hello M . Yes we have, and I hear you about the energy; and really, I don't know that all of this makes any difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Hello NeedToUseYou
I must say that the prospect of a rapist also being charged with murder or manslaughter as well as rape should their act result in conception and then an abortion is a little appealing.
 
Peace
the.dark.

Can't we just drop the rapist out of an airplane?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
...the conclusion is the only way to do that in an equitable manner is to allow the victim to stop being victimized by the forced pregnancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
So the question I am asking is, why is it murder to abort a 3 month old fetus when two 14 year olds have sex and one of them get pregnant, and not murder when a 14 year old is gang raped and ends up pregnant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
I limit myself to not voting for political candidates that support abortion. It's my vote ... I'm sure someone will cancel me out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Just because a pregnancy occurs at an inconvenient time in a person's life, it doesn't mean the best option is to abort. Just because someone is young or unpartnered it doesn't mean that their life will be in ruins if they decide to have the child. Sometimes it can even be the best damn thing that ever happened to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Just because a pregnancy occurs at an inconvenient time in a person's life, it doesn't mean the best option is to abort. Just because someone is young or unpartnered it doesn't mean that their life will be in ruins if they decide to have the child. Sometimes it can even be the best damn thing that ever happened to them.

I really respect your story. I respect the choice you made. My only questions are these:

Do you respect that the same choice is for others to make for themselves?

Do you vote for choice?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I did answer it in the rest of the quote.


It's simple.

It's like this, If I hold a gun to some woman's head and say I'm going to kill you unless you shoot some guy I point out on the street. Is she responsible? No. Why, because she was forced to do that in order to protect her life, and health.

So, the premise goes, if under that murder scenario, one is not responsible for murder when forced to threat of their own life. Then how could abortion even if outlawed otherwise, not be be allowed when the pregnancy was forced. As in the killing would be the fault of the rapist and charges could be levied, but not against the victim. As getting an abortion in that scenario would simply be putting the victim back to their original state as closely as possible.

Under your scenario. One would have to accept the premise that a victim can be pu;nished and held accountable for the actions of the attacker. In other words, in order to ban abortion when pregnancy was forced, we'd have to accept the premise that the woman had to be responsible for choices made by others against her. Seeing that we do not function in that regard in law, it would seem it would be a logical assumption that under that condition one would qualify as an exemption even if abortion in general were illegal.

It is quite logical, I assure you, if you view it as another crime.

So to draw a simple example.
Girl ->>>Raped>>>>Pregnancy>>>>No choice>>>No responsiblity for violence inflicted on others because of the attack>>>Abortion. >>>Rapist responsible.

Girl>>>>Gun To Head>>>>Forced to shoot random person>>>>No Choice>>>> No responsibility for violence inflicted on others because of attacker>>>Attacker responsible.

Seeing the only way in a pregnancy scenario to return the victim to the nearest state they were in before the attack(reduce effect of violence, on health, choice, and happiness), the conclusion is the only way to do that in an equitable manner is to allow the victim to stop being victimized by the forced pregnancy.

It makes sense to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The only thing I really learned from this thread is that so many people have an agenda.. so many are unable, and, perhaps even moreso, unwilling to consider anything that might not be inline with their goals..

Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I did answer it in the rest of the quote.


It's simple.

It's like this, If I hold a gun to some woman's head and say I'm going to kill you unless you shoot some guy I point out on the street. Is she responsible? No. Why, because she was forced to do that in order to protect her life, and health.

So, the premise goes, if under that murder scenario, one is not responsible for murder when forced to threat of their own life. Then how could abortion even if outlawed otherwise, not be be allowed when the pregnancy was forced. As in the killing would be the fault of the rapist and charges could be levied, but not against the victim. As getting an abortion in that scenario would simply be putting the victim back to their original state as closely as possible.

Under your scenario. One would have to accept the premise that a victim can be pu;nished and held accountable for the actions of the attacker. In other words, in order to ban abortion when pregnancy was forced, we'd have to accept the premise that the woman had to be responsible for choices made by others against her. Seeing that we do not function in that regard in law, it would seem it would be a logical assumption that under that condition one would qualify as an exemption even if abortion in general were illegal.

It is quite logical, I assure you, if you view it as another crime.

So to draw a simple example.
Girl ->>>Raped>>>>Pregnancy>>>>No choice>>>No responsiblity for violence inflicted on others because of the attack>>>Abortion. >>>Rapist responsible.

Girl>>>>Gun To Head>>>>Forced to shoot random person>>>>No Choice>>>> No responsibility for violence inflicted on others because of attacker>>>Attacker responsible.

Seeing the only way in a pregnancy scenario to return the victim to the nearest state they were in before the attack(reduce effect of violence, on health, choice, and happiness), the conclusion is the only way to do that in an equitable manner is to allow the victim to stop being victimized by the forced pregnancy.

It makes sense to me.

You are still side-stepping the question.

The Right-to-Lifers view abortion as murder.

Your argument makes the point that a woman being forced to carry a child to term is "punishment."

An interesting way to look at having kids, but if it works for you, keep it up.

My question is "Why is it not murder to abort a fetus from rape, but murder to abort a fetus when a 16 year old girl is knocked up by her boyfriend?"

In both situations, the fetus had nothing to do with the circumstances of it's creation.  Yet the circumstances of it's creation are the "choices" or rationalizations for whether an abortion (read: to anti-abortionists, murder) can take place.

Please answer the question.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

The only thing I really learned from this thread is that so many people have an agenda.. so many are unable, and, perhaps even moreso, unwilling to consider anything that might not be inline with their goals..

Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to know.