Ryan AGAIN wants to force Raped Women to give birth, outlaw abortion/IVF/planB

[BluegrassBlueVote]

It's not even close to being popular with Republicans, either. You'll have to ask someone else because I'm terrible at seeing things from the perspective of such an archaic worldview. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Not if you believe that life begins at conception.  If you truly believe that life begins at conception, that means that any abortion would be killing a human being, and even killing a human being to prevent psychological damage is not a complete defense to murder.  It is an excuse, but not a justification.

You seem to be under the opinion that because your belief is principled or because it's a logical extension of existing, commonplace reasoning (i.e., that life begins at conception), it's not radical.

But in this society, it is. We're at a standoff regarding abortion rights in general, but very very few people seriously believe that raped women should be forced to have their baby. It's absolutely radical, and it's not a light decision. After having a man strip away her right not to be raped, we as a society believe that a group of men shouldn't then force her to carry her rapist's baby.

A lot of us are very conflicted on the issue of abortion. We know the facts -- we know what happens at conception, at what point a fetus is viable outside the womb, and we know the dangers of late-term abortions for both baby and mother. We try to create a patchwork of laws and rules to do the least amount of harm over an issue that no one will ever agree. I'm largely pro-choice, but not in 100% of situations. Just as some people are largely pro-life, but make exceptions for the life of the mother or rape.

It's not just about the baby, dude. It's about the woman. A woman who was just forcibly raped. And this woman is living in a highly discriminatory culture -- one where rape victims are frequently blamed for their own attack. One where, behind closed doors, high school football players in Ohio joke about raping and killing a classmate. It's a crime where perpetrators are almost never brought to justice. You can pretend that our culture abhors rape all you want -- the truth is that men in our culture are just a little bit too okay with it.



Why is that chart important? Because it's shows a side of rape we'd rather not see. Rape babies are often seen as the woman's fault. It's because the woman didn't fight hard enough to set off that mythical "in-body rape defense." It's because the woman "raped so easy." It's because the woman is trying to use being drunk as a defense about the sex we all know she probably wanted anyway. It's because the "rape" didn't happen -- it's just an excuse for the woman to get her abortion and escape the shame of being called a slut. Because isn't that what women who have sex with people who aren't us are? Sluts? These arguments are a very pervasive part of the ultra-conservative Republican culture right now. And they're abhorrent.

Being forced to choose between abortion and raising a rape baby is a pretty terrible thing for anyone -- pro-life or pro-choice. Our society believes that the woman -- the victim, forced to carry her attacker's child -- has the right to make the terrible decision on her own. What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

This isn't a question about intelligence. It's a question about culture and a question about empathy. And for those in the public who see good arguments on both sides of the abortion issue, there's really no middle ground here. Of course you err on the side of the mother here, rather than force her to live a nightmare for the rest of her life and birth/raise a baby she'd rather have aborted. Of course. Anything less is radical.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not if you believe that life begins at conception.  If you truly believe that life begins at conception, that means that any abortion would be killing a human being, and even killing a human being to prevent psychological damage is not a complete defense to murder.  It is an excuse, but not a justification.

You seem to be under the opinion that because your belief is principled or because it's a logical extension of existing, commonplace reasoning (i.e., that life begins at conception), it's not radical.

I never said that.  He said that believing that life begins at conception is not radical.  My only point was that if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then you must logically say that abortion may be outlawed in the instance of rape.

And from the standpoint of one who believes that life does begin at conception, it is just as radical to say that abortion is OK in an instance of rape, because you're saying it is ok to commit murder.  It's all about the premise that you start with.

[Mr. Morden]

I never said that.  He said that believing that life begins at conception is not radical.  My only point was that if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then you must logically say that abortion may be outlawed in the instance of rape.

I don't think that's true at all.  It's perfectly coherent to think that the fetus is alive, and yet the mother shouldn't be forced to carry it to term against her will.  The basic principle is one that already exists in law.  I mean, people aren't legally required to donate blood, even though it would save lives.  Nor to risk their lives by jumping into the ocean to save someone who's drowning.

It is in fact perfectly logically coherent to believe that 1) life begins at conception, 2) abortion should be illegal in most cases, but 3) there should be an exception for rape.  The difference between the rape and non-rape case is that in the non-rape case, the decision to have sex and at least risk pregnancy was freely given, and so one could argue that the mother's responsibility to the life created by her freely chosen act is more acute.  Whereas in the case of rape, there was no such choice made.  All of these premises are debatable, but it's not logically incoherent.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

The only way you avoid such a connection is to remove premise #2 and say that all human beings are not equal before the law.  And if you do that, you've removed years of what civil rights activists fought for, and you are saying that humans can determine who gets inalienable rights and who doesn't.  And if humanity can determine that, they really aren't inalienable.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

The only way you avoid such a connection is to remove premise #2 and say that all human beings are not equal before the law.  And if you do that, you've removed years of what civil rights activists fought for, and you are saying that humans can determine who gets inalienable rights and who doesn't.  And if humanity can determine that, they really aren't inalienable.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

(And pro-life radicals, apparently)

[muon2]

There is certainly a consistent belief to hold that life begins at conception. Yet, even if one sets aside the horrible situation created by rape there are legal/scientific problems with that definition.

For example there is the problem of identical twins. Scientifically, identical twins occur when a fertilized egg sheds cells during the first few days (thought to be about 12) after conception. Most of the time such shed cells do not develop, but when they do it results in an identical twin. If legal rights are assigned at conception, when and what rights does the twin have? Cells are frequently shed to no effect (in fact throughout life) so there would be no purpose in assigning legal human status to those cells. Yet, sometimes they grow and become a separate living human, without the benefit of conception to mark their beginning.

So, the legal dilemma is to determine when prenatal rights should accrue to identical twins. If at conception, then one is stuck with only one legally identified human and a lot of cellular material that will never develop. Of course there's also no way of knowing which twin was the primary zygote and which was secondary. I've never encountered a good resolution of this dilemma that satisfies the science and the law.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

The only way you avoid such a connection is to remove premise #2 and say that all human beings are not equal before the law.  And if you do that, you've removed years of what civil rights activists fought for, and you are saying that humans can determine who gets inalienable rights and who doesn't.  And if humanity can determine that, they really aren't inalienable.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

(And pro-life radicals, apparently)

Well where was the flaw in my logic?

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

The only way you avoid such a connection is to remove premise #2 and say that all human beings are not equal before the law.  And if you do that, you've removed years of what civil rights activists fought for, and you are saying that humans can determine who gets inalienable rights and who doesn't.  And if humanity can determine that, they really aren't inalienable.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

(And pro-life radicals, apparently)

Well where was the flaw in my logic?

The fact you think "logic" outweighs the sheer immorality of forcing a raped woman to carry her rapist's baby.

[Mr. Morden]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

No it wouldn't, because the 5-year-old child is no longer attached to the woman, as it was when it was a fetus.  What I'm saying here is that even if you think the fetus is a human life, you then have the separate question of whether there really is a right to life in all circumstances.  What's being contested is #3 on your list, or possibly #2 and #3, or something like that.

The question is, if I have a person (with all the normal rights that a person has) inside me, and that person has to stay inside me for nine months while I take care of it, potentially causing me enormous pain and/or risking my own health, should I be legally required to keep it inside me, or should I have the legal right to kill it?  It's perfectly possible to say that you should *not* be legally required to keep that person alive, on the same grounds that the government doesn't require you to donate a kidney or donate blood to save other lives.  In fact, pro-choicers make that argument all the time.....that even if the fetus is a person, abortion should still be legal, because the mother still shouldn't be legally required to keep that person alive.

But it's also possible to say that the mother should be legally required to keep the kid inside her for the course of the pregnancy if and only if she engaged in an act (consensual sex) that she would have had a reasonable belief might bring this person into existence, but should *not* be required to do so if she didn't engage in such an act (i.e., she was raped, rather than engaging in consensual sex).

You should watch this video of Michelle Goldberg debating Ross Douthat about this stuff, including hypotheticals like what would be your legal requirements if an "ailing violinist" was attached to you for 9 months:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2851?in=58:30&out=62:35

It's standard fare for the abortion debate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

The only way you avoid such a connection is to remove premise #2 and say that all human beings are not equal before the law.  And if you do that, you've removed years of what civil rights activists fought for, and you are saying that humans can determine who gets inalienable rights and who doesn't.  And if humanity can determine that, they really aren't inalienable.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

(And pro-life radicals, apparently)

Well where was the flaw in my logic?

The fact you think "logic" outweighs the sheer immorality of forcing a raped woman to carry her rapist's baby.

But if you believe that a baby is a life, the immorality of murdering that baby outweighs forcing a woman to carry the baby.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

No it wouldn't, because the 5-year-old child is no longer attached to the woman, as it was when it was a fetus.  What I'm saying here is that even if you think the fetus is a human life, you then have the separate question of whether there really is a right to life in all circumstances.  What's being contested is #3 on your list, or possibly #2 and #3, or something like that.

The question is, if I have a person (with all the normal rights that a person has) inside me, and that person has to stay inside me for nine months while I take care of it, potentially causing me enormous pain and/or risking my own health, should I be legally required to keep it inside me, or should I have the legal right to kill it?  It's perfectly possible to say that you should *not* be legally required to keep that person alive, on the same grounds that the government doesn't require you to donate a kidney or donate blood to save other lives.  In fact, pro-choicers make that argument all the time.....that even if the fetus is a person, abortion should still be legal, because the mother still shouldn't be legally required to keep that person alive.

But it's also possible to say that the mother should be legally required to keep the kid inside her for the course of the pregnancy if and only if she engaged in an act (consensual sex) that she would have had a reasonable belief might bring this person into existence, but should *not* be required to do so if she didn't engage in such an act (i.e., she was raped, rather than engaging in consensual sex).

You should watch this video of Michelle Goldberg debating Ross Douthat about this stuff, including hypotheticals like what would be your legal requirements if an "ailing violinist" was attached to you for 9 months:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2851?in=58:30&out=62:35

It's standard fare for the abortion debate.

So, coming at this from the premise that an unborn baby is a human life, what is your standard for when a human being does not have a right to life?

[Likely Voter]

Yes some people see forcing rape victems to have their babies as 'logical' but the vast majority of Americans and even Republicans don't think the government should do that. This is why in 2012 we saw some Republicans come up with crazy justifications ('legitimate rape' or 'gods plan' etc). Bottom line is that forcing women to have their rapists babies is not a political winner and so getting back to the OP, Ryan could end up being painted as an extremist on this. After losing two elections in a row even pragmatic pro-life voters may recognize that this isn't going to help.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes some people see forcing rape victems to have their babies as 'logical' but the vast majority of Americans and even Republicans don't think the government should do that. This is why in 2012 we saw some Republicans come up with crazy justifications ('legitimate rape' or 'gods plan' etc). Bottom line is that forcing women to have their rapists babies is not a political winner and so getting back to the OP, Ryan could end up being painted as an extremist on this. After losing two elections in a row even pragmatic pro-life voters may recognize that this isn't going to help.

If you believe that life begins at conception, it is the logical end to that premise, unless you believe that not all humans have a right to life.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

it is sad that you believe that it is impossible for a child's life to be worthwhile due to circumstances of birth.  it is sad that you believe a mother cannot come to love her child - either in raising her or giving her an adoptive home.   but what is saddest of all is that you damn a child's character before she is born as a justification for her destruction. I might have hoped the 20th century was enough for us all to forswear social darwinist eugenics.

[Mr. Morden]

But why should there be an exception for rape?

1. Life begins at conception, meaning that a fetus is a human being.
2. All human beings have equal inalienable rights before the law.
3. One of these rights is a right to life.
4. An unborn baby has a right to life.

You can't just change #4 to say "an unborn baby has a right to life, except if it was conceived through rape", because, if a fetus truly is a human life, then it is treated with the rights of all of humanity, and all of humanity is treated with the same rights as a fetus.  To say that a fetus could be aborted because it was conceived out of rape, even though it is a human life, would mean that a mother could kill her 5-year-old child who was conceived out of rape.

No it wouldn't, because the 5-year-old child is no longer attached to the woman, as it was when it was a fetus.  What I'm saying here is that even if you think the fetus is a human life, you then have the separate question of whether there really is a right to life in all circumstances.  What's being contested is #3 on your list, or possibly #2 and #3, or something like that.

The question is, if I have a person (with all the normal rights that a person has) inside me, and that person has to stay inside me for nine months while I take care of it, potentially causing me enormous pain and/or risking my own health, should I be legally required to keep it inside me, or should I have the legal right to kill it?  It's perfectly possible to say that you should *not* be legally required to keep that person alive, on the same grounds that the government doesn't require you to donate a kidney or donate blood to save other lives.  In fact, pro-choicers make that argument all the time.....that even if the fetus is a person, abortion should still be legal, because the mother still shouldn't be legally required to keep that person alive.

But it's also possible to say that the mother should be legally required to keep the kid inside her for the course of the pregnancy if and only if she engaged in an act (consensual sex) that she would have had a reasonable belief might bring this person into existence, but should *not* be required to do so if she didn't engage in such an act (i.e., she was raped, rather than engaging in consensual sex).

You should watch this video of Michelle Goldberg debating Ross Douthat about this stuff, including hypotheticals like what would be your legal requirements if an "ailing violinist" was attached to you for 9 months:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2851?in=58:30&out=62:35

It's standard fare for the abortion debate.

So, coming at this from the premise that an unborn baby is a human life, what is your standard for when a human being does not have a right to life?

Inks, to be clear here, it isn't *my* standard per se.  I'm not getting into what I think.  I'm trying to show you what the argument is against your original contention that:

If you believe that life begins at conception, such a stance is the only logical conclusion of that belief.

I'm saying that many people would argue that life beginning at conception does *not* inevitably lead to a belief that all abortion must be banned.

But to get back to your question, about the standard for when someone does not have a right to life, the standard that some would argue here is that one doesn't have a right to life when the support of that life is dependent on coercing an unwilling participant into using her body to support the life.

This is the violinist thought experiment advanced by numerous pro-choicers, which argues that even if the fetus is a person, the mother shouldn't be forced to supply her body to support it once it exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In any case, this is the view of many pro-choicers.  But there are also "pro-lifers with exceptions" who believe a milder version of this….which is that in the case of a woman who had consented to sex, she was engaging in a freely chosen act which she knew might lead to the creation of a life.  And so if a pregnancy comes about, she has an obligation to see it through to the end.  Whereas if the pregnancy came about because of rape, then there was no choice on her part, and while going through with the pregnancy might be the right thing to do, the law should no more require her to go through with childbirth than it should legally require someone to donate a kidney to save a life (which it doesn't).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I would argue that at that point, the person hooked up to the kidney machine doesn't have the right to unplug the person form her machine.

Now, this is not to say that the person would have committed first degree murder, but I would say that, in the least, it is negligent homicide (if not recklessness, as the woman would almost surely know that the man would die; if she did not know the man would die, it would only be negligence).

[Mr. Morden]

And I would argue that at that point, the person hooked up to the kidney machine doesn't have the right to unplug the person form her machine.

Now, this is not to say that the person would have committed first degree murder, but I would say that, in the least, it is negligent homicide (if not recklessness, as the woman would almost surely know that the man would die; if she did not know the man would die, it would only be negligence).

OK, that's a legitimate point of view.  But not everyone shares it.  All I was ever arguing was that your contention that "if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then you must logically say that abortion may be outlawed in the instance of rape" was flawed.  I was just offering a rationale for why one doesn't *have* to logically go from life beginning at conception to outlawing abortion in all cases.  Not everyone agrees with the case, but it's a case.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

abortion is not simply a matter of unplugging an inanimate object indirectly leading to another's death. it is an act of aggression against a body. A better analogy would be if you had to cut open the violinist and remove his kidney in order to free him from you.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I would argue that at that point, the person hooked up to the kidney machine doesn't have the right to unplug the person form her machine.

Now, this is not to say that the person would have committed first degree murder, but I would say that, in the least, it is negligent homicide (if not recklessness, as the woman would almost surely know that the man would die; if she did not know the man would die, it would only be negligence).

OK, that's a legitimate point of view.  But not everyone shares it.  All I was ever arguing was that your contention that "if you truly believe that life begins at conception, then you must logically say that abortion may be outlawed in the instance of rape" was flawed.  I was just offering a rationale for why one doesn't *have* to logically go from life beginning at conception to outlawing abortion in all cases.  Not everyone agrees with the case, but it's a case.

I'd say that most people would agree with that position; at least from a common law perspective.  I guess there are those who could disagree with it, but they would be in the small minority.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, my post about rapist visitation rights got deleted for hyperbole. Silly moderators, that's not hyperbole, 31 states give rapists such rights.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/31-states-grant-rapists-custody-and-visitation-rights/56118/

[Brittain33]

Don't something like half of conceptions fail to come to term, the large majority without the mother ever knowing she'd conceived? If God believes that life begins at conception, He seems awfully callous about the value of that life.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

it is sad that you believe that it is impossible for a child's life to be worthwhile due to circumstances of birth.  it is sad that you believe a mother cannot come to love her child - either in raising her or giving her an adoptive home.   but what is saddest of all is that you damn a child's character before she is born as a justification for her destruction. I might have hoped the 20th century was enough for us all to forswear social darwinist eugenics.

Cute sermon.

[7,052,770]

abortion is not simply a matter of unplugging an inanimate object indirectly leading to another's death. it is an act of aggression against a body. A better analogy would be if you had to cut open the violinist and remove his kidney in order to free him from you.

Why?  A fetus isn't cognizant, so maybe your analogy would work if the violinist was in a coma or something...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What good can forcing this woman to carry her child have? You're just guaranteeing a terrible life for the child, a terrible life for the mother (who is obviously going to be unprepared to raise a child), and a "victory" for the genetic line that was somehow able to rationalize and commit one of the most heinous of crimes.

it is sad that you believe that it is impossible for a child's life to be worthwhile due to circumstances of birth.  it is sad that you believe a mother cannot come to love her child - either in raising her or giving her an adoptive home.   but what is saddest of all is that you damn a child's character before she is born as a justification for her destruction. I might have hoped the 20th century was enough for us all to forswear social darwinist eugenics.

A child can have a worthwhile life regardless of circumstances, of course.

But very specifically, we are talking about a child born to a woman who would rather see the baby aborted than born. Forcing a mother to raise her rapist's baby -- a "baby" she'd rather "abort" -- is not a recipe for a healthy, happy family life.

Isn't it Republican to want happy, two-parent homes for everyone? Haven't we been warned of the dangers of single motherhood?

But yeah, this is totally about Hitler. Plan B for rape babies = Hitler. Obvious.