Really touchy subject

[MikeG]

For the same reason that homicide is acceptable under certain conditions. Homicide is usually wrong, however it's justifiable in a self defense situation - right? Or when the state executes a criminal?

Common sense.

Bingo. How is abortion "self-defense"? An elective abortion does not punish the rapist. It does not protect the life of the mother. To be justified, the homicide victim must be committing an act that threatens the life of the person that kills them. Therefore, life of the mother is a valid reason for an abortion. Even the Catholic church believes that.

But you still didn't answer why you believe abortions are wrong in the purely elective case. That's important because it's the foundation upon which pro-life is founded.

I can go to a Dr. and have liposuction performed and no one thinks twice. A women decides that she doesn't want to be pregnant (let's say a married women who wasn't raped and already has two kids) and has a D&C. You have stated that you though that would be wrong. Why? Why do you believe it's different than a liposuction procedure?

You will eventually be confronted with the understanding that those cells that make up the fetus are different than other cells. The "choice" to remove them are different because of a basic understanding that those cells have some basic rights. The next dilemma is infringing those rights due to a third party committing a crime. It's really hard to justify an act against a third party as a justified measure of defense.

There are many situations that people find themselves in that are traumatic that they don't get to undo even if it isn't their fault. Tsunami's and tornadoes are in the news today. It will traumatize those victims for a long time. There are probably an awful lot of people reminded of those events when they look at the ocean or the rubble around their home. We rally around them and help them cope with it.

Rape cannot be undone. No amount of abortions will undo it. The trauma will last a lot longer than nine months.

I can understand the position that the fetus isn't a person (or isn't a person until a certain milestone). That leads to the choice of being pregnant or not and has no bearing on the circumstances of becoming pregancy. The procedure is the same as liposuction meaning it's just tissue that's part of the mother. That argument is consistent. I disagree with it, but it has merit.

The argument that abortion is not okay except in cases of rape or incest is pandoring to an emotional component. It's the belief that a crime can be so heinous that we punish the offspring of the criminal. It's a belief that unwanted pregnancies should go forward unless the reason they are unwanted is acceptable in some arbitrary fashion. There are lot's of traumatic events that can be conjured up. Let's say pregnant mother's husband goes beserk and kills her family and himself. Should she be able to have an abortion? She wasn't raped but she's carrying the child of someone that killed her family. Traumatic enough? It's a slippery slope.

[wisco]

An elective abortion does not punish the rapist.

I would beg to differ. A human life is just as much about emotianal well being as it is physical well being. We are not trees that have no feelings.

It does not protect the life of the mother.

I would beg to differ again.

But you still didn't answer why you believe abortions are wrong in the purely elective case. That's important because it's the foundation upon which pro-life is founded.

It's what I believe because it's what I believe... what more of an answer do you want?

I can go to a Dr. and have liposuction performed and no one thinks twice. A women decides that she doesn't want to be pregnant (let's say a married women who wasn't raped and already has two kids) and has a D&C. You have stated that you though that would be wrong. Why? Why do you believe it's different than a liposuction procedure?

I'd love to answer this if I knew what the heck you meant by "D&C".

There are many situations that people find themselves in that are traumatic that they don't get to undo even if it isn't their fault. Tsunami's and tornadoes are in the news today. It will traumatize those victims for a long time. There are probably an awful lot of people reminded of those events when they look at the ocean or the rubble around their home. We rally around them and help them cope with it.

Again with the disproportianate comparisons. A tsunami or tornado is an "act of god". Rape requires a conscious decision. Nature holds no reservations on who it "attacks".

Rape cannot be undone. No amount of abortions will undo it. The trauma will last a lot longer than nine months.

Indeed. Why make it worse by forcing a woman to bear a child that she did nothing to create?

I can understand the position that the fetus isn't a person (or isn't a person until a certain milestone).

That's not my position. I believe life begins at conception. But the focus of this debate is not about when life begins, but rather should someone be held accountable for it when they did nothing intentionally wrong.

The argument that abortion is not okay except in cases of rape or incest is pandoring to an emotional component.

We are emotional beings. Should that not be considered when determining punishments?

It's the belief that a crime can be so heinous that we punish the offspring of the criminal.

I don't view it as punishing the offspring. I view it as removing something that was never supposed to be there, and in the end God will have the final say.

It's a belief that unwanted pregnancies should go forward unless the reason they are unwanted is acceptable in some arbitrary fashion.

I hardly consider rape "aribitrary".

There are lot's of traumatic events that can be conjured up. Let's say pregnant mother's husband goes beserk and kills her family and himself. Should she be able to have an abortion? She wasn't raped but she's carrying the child of someone that killed her family. Traumatic enough? It's a slippery slope.

Again, she's carrying the child of someone SHE CHOSE TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH. There is no choice in a rape. There is only a victim, and that victim is not responsible.

You keep trying to throw these analogies out and none of them make sense because they all involve a personal choice. You're going to be hard pressed to find any scenario that correlates with a rape.

[SANE-A30]

I do get what you are saying, the option should be there, even if I don't personally agree with it ,in the future I will support my patients full force with any and decisions regarding the issue....I've been on all corners of the fence with this debate in my own personal life, except I got lucky and did not have to make that dreadful choice, God made it for me.( I was eighteen at the time ). so yes in the end he does have the final say, but had it of been different * I * would have kept it regardless... I think that pretty much correlates with your scenario..like I said before tragic things happen to all of us but it does not dictate our lives..we choose to allow things to.

[PathosLogos]

I would beg to differ. A human life is just as much about emotianal well being as it is physical well being. We are not trees that have no feelings.

Uhh...what? I fail to see how aborting the child would punish the rapist in any way.

[wisco]

Uhh...what? I fail to see how aborting the child would punish the rapist in any way.

Sorry, that was a misquote on my part. My response in that instance was directed to his statement of "It does not protect the life of the mother." I seem to have double answered. It's hard to keep up with all these multi-quotes. ;)

[PathosLogos]

Sorry, that was a misquote on my part. My response in that instance was directed to his statement of "It does not protect the life of the mother." I seem to have double answered. It's hard to keep up with all these multi-quotes. ;)

That's what I thought initially, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification!

[angrymobjustice]

If 93% of all abortions are performed because the child was 'unwanted,' what is being done to address how that child was conceived? Where are the sex-ed programs preaching safe-sex? According to a study performed by the Guttmacher Institute, pregnancies in women aged 15-19 declined in 2006 and were at a peak, along with abortions, just last year - after sex-ed programs began promoting an 'abstinence only' curriculum.