Raw Story: GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes

[HooHog]

Sure, just so long as we hold right in front of us the unchanging revealed Word of God in front of us so our morality will not devolve into moral relativism. BTW, I am firm believer in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I'll not move an inch from that position.

I don't personally believe that god is necessary for objective morality.

[Jumbo]

I don't personally believe that god is necessary for objective morality.

Ok, but you'll have a helluva time setting up your Wesleyan Quadrilateral without a god. Just sayin'. :pfft:

[Destino]

Fertilized egg is not a fully fledged person. Neither are children, and neither are many adults. These are complex issues.

Polk psychology and traditional understanding of free will is pretty much all wrong. Our justice system sucks and so does our approach to a host of other issues. We can and should do better, and I think religion stands in the way.

None of what you mentioned matters at all in the context of this discussion. At what point is the unborn a human life worthy of respect and protection.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is no way of knowing whether inconsistencies come from the revelation or perversion. It's a matter of faith.

But the difference is that you think that's a bad thing.

I can only observe the fact of resulting inconsistencies and note that the approach of relying on God's revelation does not reliably result in people following a good stable morality.

Ahhh, but instead of placing the blame on people you blame God and the message in scripture, people are the weak link.

It's one of those "true by definition" things. This is similar to a claim of God being a kind/loving father figure type. I try to be a kind/loving father and I regardless of what my children do, I think it would be extremely unkind and unloving for me to drown them, for example. Some might be inclined to disagree with me. I do not think a good argument can be made here, so again it's a matter of faith.

....I doubt I'll need to restate that the difference here is you think that's a bad thing.

I happen to very strongly disagree with an approach that places authority of a book written by humans over our God-given moral compass.

And I very happily reject the idea that the book is contrary to our God given moral compass....hence the whole "God given" part.

It is strange that you would consider a moral compass that was definitely given to us by God as something that will lead to moral relativism.

The pure moral compass has been corrupted by sin, that's kinda the whole point.

[Koolblue13]

None of what you mentioned matters at all in the context of this discussion. At what point is the unborn a human life worthy of respect and protection.

Define unborn.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Define unborn.

Really?

[Koolblue13]

Really?

Is born like the picture of the egg I posted earlier that so many think it is or is it an actual baby coming out? How is that not a legit question?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is born like the picture of the egg I posted earlier that so many think it is or is it an actual baby coming out? How is that not a legit question?

This is where the whole debate devolves into a debate about degrees of advancement, comparing a freshly fertilized egg to a full term child ignores the day by day progression. For instance what is the tangible difference between a freshly delivered baby and one that is being pushed through the birth canal? Nil. Now subtract a minute...then an hour....then a day. You get the point I'm sure. Is there a difference in advancement? Sure, is birth arbitrary? Sure. Why not when the umbilical cord is cut? All we're talking about is at what point in an infinite number of degrees in advancement in the womb is it or isn't it a baby? And the reality is that where you draw the line has no more or less legitimacy than a "from conception" crowd.

[DjTj]

how is it good policy to terminate the life of the person who's interests you are obligated to represent though?(if you are talking intervention by a 3rd party)

I am not concerned with the pregnancies that are terminated. I am concerned with those that are carried to term. A woman is not given a choice when raped, but we can give them an opportunity to choose life after the rape. A baby that the mother chooses to carry will be healthier and better cared for than a baby that the mother is forced to carry.

[Madison Redskin]

None of what you mentioned matters at all in the context of this discussion. At what point is the unborn a human life worthy of respect and protection.

I used to say a fetus in the third trimester. Now that my wife is pregnant (with twins) and I've had the privilege to see how developed a fetus is at just 12 weeks, I am probably leaning towards a fetus in the second trimester. This issue does not present any easy/simple answers.

[twa]

I get you djtj, but it seems to me there should be some(more) concern on society's part(a manner of endorsing the option of life w/o compelling it )

we spend a lot of time and money defending the life of convicted murderers and even demonstrate empathy for animals harmed....yet seem inclined to punt on the human unborn.

I just have trouble with what seems to me a willingness to blandly accept the loss of a life,or that the choice is just a choice.

This is not directed at you,just general grousing....I think of kids and life as a gift from God,even though they are at times unwanted and a burden.

[Destino]

Define unborn.

No. That the purpose of the question and my position. I believe that the main block in the abortion debate is the point in which people believe a human comes into being. I don't think there is a definition here.

Is an unfertilized egg unborn? Perhaps not. What about a fertilized egg that hasn't yet attached or exists in a lab? What about week 2 of pregnancy... And so on...

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:27 AM ----------

I used to say a fetus in the third trimester. Now that my wife is pregnant (with twins) and I've had the privilege to see how developed a fetus is at just 12 weeks, I am probably leaning towards a fetus in the second trimester. This issue does not present any easy/simple answers.

Congrats! My wife is also pregnant (just one girl, not twins) and my experience mirrors yours. The whole heart beat experience is incredible.

Having said that if there was a way for this issue to be decided entirely by women I'd support that.

[DjTj]

I get you djtj, but it seems to me there should be some(more) concern on society's part(a manner of endorsing the option of life w/o compelling it )

we spend a lot of time and money defending the life of convicted murderers and even demonstrate empathy for animals harmed....yet seem inclined to punt on the human unborn.

I just have trouble with what seems to me a willingness to blandly accept the loss of a life,or that the choice is just a choice.

This is not directed at you,just general grousing....I think of kids and life as a gift from God,even though they are at times unwanted and a burden.

I definitely understand where you are coming from, but I just don't think that criminalization is the solution.

I think that we can show empathy for the unborn by trying to convince mothers to choose life. If it is a question of resources spent, we can make that choice easier by supporting and promoting adoption as an alternative.

[Koolblue13]

No. That the purpose of the question and my position. I believe that the main block in the abortion debate is the point in which people believe a human comes into being. I don't think there is a definition here.

Is an unfertilized egg unborn? Perhaps not. What about a fertilized egg that hasn't yet attached or exists in a lab? What about week 2 of pregnancy... And so on...

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:27 AM ----------

Congrats! My wife is also pregnant (just one girl, not twins) and my experience mirrors yours. The whole heart beat experience is incredible.

Having said that if there was a way for this issue to be decided entirely by women I'd support that.

On the first point, I wonder too about that. Personally, I've believed at birth, but I've also never had a baby.

The second point, yes, I'd love to defer this one to just the ladies.

My mom told me when I was young that if she got pregnant when she was raped, she would of had the baby, because she wasn't a fan of abortion, but she would also never dream of making that decision for others, so that's always been my stance.

[skinsmarydu]

On the first point, I wonder too about that. Personally, I've believed at birth, but I've also never had a baby.

The second point, yes, I'd love to defer this one to just the ladies.

My mom told me when I was young that if she got pregnant when she was raped, she would of had the baby, because she wasn't a fan of abortion, but she would also never dream of making that decision for others, so that's always been my stance.

And your stance is completely reasonable and appreciated by women. Thanks!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, but you'll have a helluva time setting up your Wesleyan Quadrilateral without a god. Just sayin'. :pfft:

It does pose certain challenges.

[Bliz]

Saw this tweet last night:

"I'm not saying I hope God gives Richard Mourdock a tumor, but if He does, I hope Mourodck carries it to term."

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 08:31 AM ----------

Tragic as the alternative may be, when a pregnancy is forced against one's will in an illegal act, mandating it be taken to a birthing against the impregnated person's will is my idea of sinful as well as a pathetic expression of a moral or ethical argument on respect for a life. That's the short version.

And here's a rather "out there" yet pertinent scenario. Let's say it was legislated that such a pregnancy must be seen to delivery. What would stop sickos who can't get a mate, yet like the idea of perpetuating their "self", from committing a rape they otherwise might not think of doing, knowing that an actual "fruit of their loins", their own child, would be the forced result (thus, delusionally, giving a purpose to their having existed) ?

It's just something I've wondered about in the past, even if it seems a bit outlandish. Professionally, I can assure it's less unlikely than some may think, but I don't mean it as some serious aspect---more a part of the complexity of the matter and food for thought.

Less hypothetically remote, yet on a similar track, what of dysfunctional relationships of all sorts where if it would be known that a woman of target forcibly impregnated against her will would have to deliver? I have known some very dysfunctional matings and even marriages where if a pregnancy unwanted by the woman could be forced to delivery, there would likely have been anything from chicanery with birth control to worse.

While I find abortion a tragic event, I can't see how we hugely oppress those already alive and vital in this world in service to "respect for life", in these kind of matters.

Any pregnancy that occurred from sexual acts or from other manipulations against the impregnated woman's will should not be legislated in a just society (IMV), even if some people claim their religion calls for doing so.

Would you also expect a rise in suicide rates among victims? I haven't looked it up, but am assuming that victims are at a heightened risk. I would think facing the prospect of being forced to carry the child of their rapist against their will would exacerbate that risk

[Zguy28]

I am not concerned with the pregnancies that are terminated. I am concerned with those that are carried to term. A woman is not given a choice when raped, but we can give them an opportunity to choose life after the rape. A baby that the mother chooses to carry will be healthier and better cared for than a baby that the mother is forced to carry.

Abortions are basically a baby being drawn and quartered, chemical burned to death, or partially decapitated with scissors. Sounds downright medieval for such an "enlightened" nation.

And you support the "right" to do this to an unborn baby because that is better than not being cared for optimally during childhood?

[Larry]

Abortions are basically a baby being drawn and quartered, chemical burned to death, or partially decapitated with scissors. Sounds downright medieval for such an "enlightened" nation.?

Looks like there's a tiny portion of your post that somehow didn't get posted, for some reason.

It's the "A tiny fraction of abortions can be described by people with an agenda as . . . " part.

I'm sure you'll be editing your post, to fix that error, Real Soon.

[alexey]

[quote name='AsburySkinsFan;9229794But the difference is that you think that's a bad thing.

]Ahhh' date=' but instead of placing the blame on people you blame God and the message in scripture, people are the weak link.[/quote']

Give people a spoon, tell them to dig a ditch, and blame them for failing.

We can rely on actual reliable information about the human psychology and the nature of reality, or we can rely on faith in ancient guesses.

My personal opinion is that good decisions depend on good information. Humanity's recent progress started with improvements to quality of information and access to information. Books. Many books.

....I doubt I'll need to restate that the difference here is you think that's a bad thing.

And I very happily reject the idea that the book is contrary to our God given moral compass....hence the whole "God given" part.

The pure moral compass has been corrupted by sin, that's kinda the whole point.

I guess it depends on what kind of faith you have.

If I were to believe in God that created me, I'd rely on faculties that he provided. I think that drowning anybody on purpose is an immoral, unkind, unloving action. If a book tells me that God drowned people on purpose, and God-given moral compass tells me that God could not do that, I'd go with the God-given moral compass.

The Old Testament God acted in ways which are clearly immoral and disagreeable. You would not act that way and you would try and prevent anybody from acting that way if you could. Yet your faith requires you to believe that these actions of God were moral and just... and then you say that people are the weak link. I agree that people are the weak link. Not calling out a clearly immoral action is a moral failure.

[DjTj]

Abortions are basically a baby being drawn and quartered, chemical burned to death, or partially decapitated with scissors. Sounds downright medieval for such an "enlightened" nation.

And you support the "right" to do this to an unborn baby because that is better than not being cared for optimally during childhood?

No, that is not the basis for my pro-choice views.

I support the right of a mother to choose because I believe that the power of the state is limited, and during the time that the life of the baby is entirely within the mother's body and the health of the baby is solely within her control, I don't think the state should have the power to intervene. I also believe that it would be an ineffective policy to regulate a woman's body in this manner because the woman retains ultimate control over the knowledge of the pregnancy, the health of her own body, and the health of the baby inside her, so even if we made abortion illegal, women would be able to make these choices outside of the law, and enforcement would remain difficult.

My statements about better care for babies during pregnancy and after they are born are merely an observation of an additional side benefit of giving mothers a choice. My hope is that all mothers would choose life, because I believe that choosing life provides the best outcomes for the children, even if the babies are given up for adoption.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We'd all be better off if EVERYONE focused less on making abortion illegal, and more on people choosing to not have abortions.

[The Evil Genius]

We'd all be better off if EVERYONE focused less on making abortion illegal, and more on people choosing to not have abortions.

Abstinence only teaching is the only method to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I know it so because my red state brothers showed me the light.

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 07:21 AM ----------

Plus, if we teach sex ed...it better not be before people can vote. We can't acknowledge that our kids under 18 have sex.

Isn't that right Sarah?

You betcha.

[twa]

We'd all be better off if EVERYONE focused less on making abortion illegal, and more on people choosing to not have abortions.

Yes and reducing the need for them as well(unwanted pregnancy)

I think one way is to not sugarcoat what abortion is in the same manner slavery was, but I support addressing it on all levels

[Koolblue13]

We'd all be better off if EVERYONE focused less on making abortion illegal, and more on people choosing to not have abortions.

Kind of like drugs. More education and compassion.