|
Aswad -> RE: Congressman Akin on legitimate rape (8/20/2012 5:48:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Is this moron actually saying that a rape induced pregnancy is not a kind of punishment?
In all fairness, that's inflicted by the rapist, not society or doctors. The question of whether or not is it legitimate to pass it on to the foetus depends on whether one considers the foetus to be an individual or not. If you consider the foetus to be an individual, then it becomes a matter of punishing the prospective child for something a rapist did to its mother, two wrongs trying to make a right in a situation where there is no right. If you do not consider it to be an individual, then it becomes a matter of protecting the woman, in a situation uncomplicated by the third party. As such, it is not surprising that there would be conflicted opinions on the matter.
What he's said is offensive enough without confusing the underlying issue.
By most current definitions, there should be no problem with including a fully subsidized "morning after" pill as part of the rape kit. That would resolve the issues for both parties, pretty much, as there is no foetus at that point. Conception occurs later. So long as elective abortion is legal, there is no argument in favor of banning it in the event of a rape. There might be an argument that people shouldn't have to pay taxes into an activity they may regard as unethical, but that holds for pacifists paying for the military, too, and any number of other issues one readily accepts as being stuff people don't get a say in. From a social perspective, the unwanted child will be unduly burdened by the stain of its origins, and society will suffer for its deleterious circumstances. As such, it can't be a fiscal argument, at least not in a reasonable world.
As far as I'm concerned, abortion should be legal up to the point where it could become a preterm baby.
Before that, it is parasitic on the mother and has no independent life in any objective sense. After that, its dependancy can shift to someone else's wallet and not the mother's body. The offspring doesn't have a claim to her body, and so she should be allowed to seperate it from herself at any point, provided she disowns it completely. If people want to pay to make the preterms survive and then raise them, that's their business, and no longer any of hers. Any fiscal or ethical requirement that the population pay for this is difficult to argue in favor of, so let the people that want to save the preterms do this on a volunteer basis, out of their own pockets.
Of course, it's insane that these people have such concern about abortion, but no concern about children.
Therein, they reveal their true colors and that this either has nothing to do with ethics, or nothing to do with reality.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
