11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[elohiym]

Why would you say [hopefully a daughter]?

I picked a gender. Sue me.

 

[Granite]

I picked a gender. Sue me.

You did so deliberately and for a reason, just wondering what and why.

 

[elohiym]

You did so deliberately and for a reason, just wondering what and why.

Because, when writing, it's better to pick a gender than write "he/she" or "he or she" or "son/daughter" or "son or daughter." Substitute son, if you like. My point is that hopefully the rape victim will see herself as a mother, and her child as her son or daughter.

 

[Granite]

Because, when writing, it's better to pick a gender than write "he/she" or "he or she" or "son/daughter" or "son or daughter." Substitute son, if you like. My point is that hopefully the rape victim will see herself as a mother, and her child as her son or daughter.

Fair enough.

 

[Traditio]

Thus, if legislation were inacted that precluded one their right to a pumped stomach...we'd have a similar disagreement....yes?

Great! At least you now understand the point of the analogy. Yes, I imagine we would be having a similar disagreement. But note: the legislation would say: "Do not pump someone's stomach in such and such circumstances." It wouldn't say: "You must digest hamburgers."

In point of fact, the hamburger would already be in my stomach. It's already on its way to being digested, whether anyone else intervenes or not.

The question is simply whether or not someone else is permitted to intervene (e.g., by means of a stomach pump). The answer is "no." But note, forcing someone not to intervene is not the same thing as forcing me to digest the hamburger. That will happen on its own by natural necessity.

Yes, by threat of violence or imprisonment.

Again, you are very seriously confused, primarily, because you are failing to distinguish properly. To what does the threat attach? In what precise form does the threat express itself? "You must not commit an abortion, or, otherwise assist in the commission of abortion. If you do, we shall punish you in such and such a way."

If you want to tell me that the non-commission of an abortion is coerced, then I'm fine with admitting that. But then you're just telling me that, by making abortion illegal, the State would be forcing the girl not to get one. To which my answer is: "No duh! That was the very intent of the legislation!"

But if you wish to draw from this an additional conclusion, "and therefore the State is forcing her to have a baby," then I'll deny this. In point of fact, she's already pregnant, independently of any intervention on the part of the State. She's already going to have a baby.

At this point, the only question is whether or not there are any legally and morally acceptable forms of intervention. In this case, the answer just so happens to be "no."

No, specific legislature is, by force, exacting a fruition which physically can - and by established right - be circumvented.

It's not "exacting a fruition." It's preventing the circumvention, in the precise same way that the doctor would be doing by refusing to pump my stomach. He's not forcing me to digest the hamburger. The person who forced me to eat the hamburger is, if you wish to speak in this way, the one who's "forcing" me to digest it. More properly, nature itself is "forcing" the digestion. That's just what a working digestive system does under those circumstances.

My mode and terminology are just fine....they simply don't speak an agreeable conclusion for you.

You're using politically and emotionally charged terms to prevent yourself from having to think the matter out for yourself. Words like that are a crutch for liberal political pundits who can't think or reason very well.

 

[Ktoyou]

It is a shame and criminal, however, abortion is never the answer.

 

[Town Heretic]

If you remove any opportunity to think on her own or make an independent decision, you are implicitly devaluing the mother.

Or you're simply valuing something else more. Just so, my right to personal autonomy is less valuable than the right of my neighbor to survive it should I consider lobbing handgrenades a reasonable pastime.

All rights aren't equal and every right runs into some abridgment, but with life that usually equals an egregious exercise of our liberty to the horrific end of ending another's ability to exercise any. No infant in the history of the world has ever crossed that threshold, though many meet the same end as those adults who have.

 

[quip]

If you want to tell me that the non-commission of an abortion is coerced, then I'm fine with admitting that. But then you're just telling me that, by making abortion illegal, the State would be forcing the girl not to get one. To which my answer is: "No duh! That was the very intent of the legislation!"

But if you wish to draw from this an additional conclusion, "and therefore the State is forcing her to have a baby," then I'll deny this. In point of fact, she's already pregnant, independently of any intervention on the part of the State. She's already going to have a baby.

Okay, so you fully agree that (state) force is in play....she's being forced by the state from procuring a desired abortion ("No duh!...") then, by logical implication and extension of this state sanctioned force the state is forcing her to see her pregnancy to fruition..i.e. the state is forcing her to have a baby.

You don't like the phrasing (in an attempt to dodge the implication, I assume), too bad...get over it. Quit your weak attempt at sophistry to justify the denial of rights to women.

 

[Traditio]

Okay, so you fully agree that (state) force is in play....she's being forced by the state from procuring a desired abortion ("No duh!...")

Yes.

then, by logical implication and extension of this state sanctioned force the state is forcing her to see her pregnancy to fruition..i.e. the state is forcing her to have her to have a baby.

Neither of these follows. I can understand the temptation:

Either she has the baby or she aborts it. The State says she can't abort it. Therefore, the State says she must have the baby.

The problem is that "having a baby" is not an intentional/voluntary act. I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently above.

In this case, the opposite of "forced" is "voluntary." Only those acts which otherwise could have been voluntary can be forced.

Again, I can't be forced to digest a hamburger. Either it happens or not.

Getting an abortion is certainly a voluntary act, and someone can be forced or compelled not to do that.

But having a baby is not a voluntary act. Therefore, since it was never voluntary in the first place, it cannot be forced.

Quit your weak attempt at sophistry to justify the denial of rights to women.

I deny that there is such a right. How would you prove that?

 

[quip]

Neither of these follows. I can understand the temptation:

Either she has the baby or she aborts it. The State says she can't abort it. Therefore, the State says she must have the baby.

The problem is that "having a baby" is not an intentional/voluntary act. I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently above.

In this case, the opposite of "forced" is "voluntary." Only those acts which otherwise could have been voluntary can be forced.

Again, I can't be forced to digest a hamburger. Either it happens or not.

Getting an abortion is certainly a voluntary act, and someone can be forced or compelled not to do that.

But having a baby is not a voluntary act. Therefore, since it was never voluntary in the first place, it cannot be forced.

Of course you "...understand the temptation" because the implication is blatantly obvious.

Unless, you have an endgame here...who cares if you disagree with the particular phrasing? The circumstances are such that a pregnant woman is not allowed personal autonomy by way of state sanction....the result, birthing a child against her will.

I deny that there is such a right. How would you prove that?

I'm sure you do.

...a task for another thread.

 

[quip]

Or you're simply valuing something else more. Just so, my right to personal autonomy is less valuable than the right of my neighbor to survive it should I consider lobbing handgrenades a reasonable pastime.

Not so in cases where your neighbor would not survive your refusal to deny (via personal autonomy) him or her, say your kidney- as an example.

All rights aren't equal and every right runs into some abridgment, but with life that usually equals an egregious exercise of our liberty to the horrific end of ending another's ability to exercise any. No infant in the history of the world has ever crossed that threshold, though many meet the same end as those adults who have.

Isn't what's true for the neighbor relationship equal to the woman/infant relationship? If not, why?

 

[Traditio]

Of course you "...understand the temptation" because the implication is blatantly obvious.

Unless, you have an endgame here...who cares if you disagree with the particular phrasing? The circumstances are such that a pregnant woman is not allowed personal autonomy by way of state sanction....the result, birthing a child against her will.

You're hiding behind liberal buzz words. Using plain English and non-politically/emotionally charged language (i.e., language which is descriptive, not prescriptive), please explain to me what you mean, and how and why that applies in this case here and now.

 

[quip]

You're hiding behind liberal buzz words. Using plain English and non-politically/emotionally charged language (i.e., language which is descriptive, not prescriptive), please explain to me what you mean, and how and why that applies in this case here and now.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'll reiterate: The circumstances are such that a pregnant woman is not allowed personal autonomy by way of state sanction....the result, birthing a child against her will.

 

[Traditio]

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'll reiterate: The circumstances are such that a pregnant woman is not allowed personal autonomy by way of state sanction....the result, birthing a child against her will.

You're basically just saying: "I'm a liberal. I disagree. BOOOOO!"

Replace "personal autonomy" with a description of what's actually happening that doesn't involve prescriptive terms. Replace "birthing a child against her will" with a description of what's actually happening that doesn't involve prescriptive terms.

You want to say her personal autonomy is being violated? Fine. Then explain what that is. Explain how it's being violated. Explain why I should care. Same goes for "birthing a child against her will." [And, let me note, when you explain all of this, do not use liberal buzzwords and emotionally/politically charged prescriptive terms. In other words, "just the facts, ma'am."]

What you'll find is that if you stop hiding behind buzzwords, what you are trying to claim is actually much less impressive. What you're saying is all smoke and fluff. There's no substance behind it.

At that point, what it comes down to is: "She doesn't want to be pregnant, and the State would punish her if she tried to terminate the pregnancy (i.e., by killing her offspring)." That's basically what you are saying, minus the fluff and smoke. Everything else you are adding is: "And as a liberal, I don't like that. BOOOOO!"

My answer: So what? Whether or not she wants to be pregnant is irrelevent to being pregnant. Being pregnant is not an intentional/voluntary act. And I entirely agree with such a policy of the State. The fact that you are saying "booooo" about it doesn't really sway me.

 

[quip]

You're basically just saying: "I'm a liberal. I disagree. BOOOOO!"

Replace "personal autonomy" with a description of what's actually happening that doesn't involve prescriptive terms. Replace "birthing a child against her will" with a description of what's actually happening that doesn't involve prescriptive terms.

Choice Trad...the state is refusing her the personal choice to surgically remove her fetus from her body; terminate her pregnancy...etc. But you know this Trad....are you simply playing games?

You want to say her personal autonomy is being violated? Fine. Then explain what that is. Explain how it's being violated. Explain why I should care. Same goes for "birthing a child against her will." [And, let me note, when you explain all of this, do not use liberal buzzwords and emotionally/politically charged prescriptive terms. In other words, "just the facts, ma'am."]

It's of little interest to me whether you particularly care or not. And I'm even less interested in jumping through your hoops ... considering I'm sure you're quite aware of the particulars regarding the abortion debate.

What you'll find is that if you stop hiding behind buzzwords, what you are trying to claim is actually much less impressive. What you're saying is all smoke and fluff. There's no substance behind it.

At that point, what it comes down to is: "She doesn't want to be pregnant, and the State would punish her if she tried to terminate the pregnancy (i.e., by killing her offspring)." That's basically what you are saying, minus the fluff and smoke. Everything else you are adding is: "And as a liberal, I don't like that. BOOOOO!"

My answer: So what?

I'm sure any woman in question would not be so flippant about her situation as you have the luxury to hold.

Otherwise, I could answer in kind: Who cares if you don't like and consider the pro-choice argument as "liberal fluff" BOO HOO!

BOO HOO!! to the lifers who equate aborting a group of undifferentiated cells akin to "the murder of an innocent baby!". . . . BOOOOOOO.... we don't approve of your lifestyle. BOOOO you don't view the unborn like we want you too.....BOOOOO

BOOOO goes the lifers who refuse to defend the ideal that a group of undifferentiated cells should (prescriptive btw) have an equal right to life as that of the mother who's body it's sustained within and upon. BOOOOO those murdering pro-abortionists.


Two can tango at your silly game....

Anything else Trad?

 

[Traditio]

Choice Trad...the state is refusing her the personal choice to surgically remove her fetus from her body; terminate her pregnancy...etc. But you know this Trad....are you simply playing games?

I'm not sure if you're aware of this quip, but that's what anti-abortion laws mean (discounting, of course, silly buzzwords like "personal choice"). You're literally saying: "I disapprove of anti-abortion laws because they are anti-abortion laws."

It's of little interest to me whether you particularly care or not. And I'm even less interested in jumping through your hoops ... considering I'm sure you're quite aware of the particulars regarding the abortion debate.

Translation: "I can't meet your challenge, because my argument is sheer emotional appeal."

Otherwise, I could answer in kind: Who cares if you don't like and consider the pro-choice argument as "liberal fluff" BOO HOO!

Any reasonable human being who cares about good reasoning and facts?

Who cares if lifers equate aborting a group of undifferentiated cells akin to "the murder of an innocent baby!". . . . BOOOOOOO.... we don't approve of your lifestyle. BOOOO you don't view the unborn like we want you too.....BOOOOO

1. Both right wingers and left wingers rely on buzz words and emotional appeals. It's not particularly helpful when debating. Does it really convince anyone? :idunno:

2. At this point, you're confusing the ontological and the normative. The pro-lifer says that the "group of undifferentiated cells" is such and such a kind of thing. Is this really the kind of claim that you're making?

Who cares if lifers refuse to defend the ideal that a group of undifferentiated cells should (prescriptive btw) have an equal right to life as that of the mother who's body it's sustained within and upon. BOOOOO those murdering pro-abortionists.

There's no "should." Either the unborn child is a person and inherently is a subject of right, or else, it isn't.

Anything else Trad?

Only to note that it amazes me that a Buddhist is having such a difficult time having a reasonable, unempassioned debate.

 

[quip]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this quip, but that's what anti-abortion laws mean. You're literally saying: "I disapprove of anti-abortion laws because they are anti-abortion laws."

:kookoo:

Kind of forcing a useless tautology here?

I disapprove of anti-abortion laws (abstract) because of the restrictions they place upon woman. (real-world phenomena).

You've now gone from thick headed to the absurd. I tire of this charade you're playing at. You win Trad.... I have a life that needs tending to...congrats.

 

[Traditio]

:kookoo:

Kind of forcing a useless tautology here?

This is what you wrote:

"...the state is refusing her the personal choice to surgically remove her fetus from her body; terminate her pregnancy."

Any prohibitive law "refuses" somebody "the personal choice" to do something.

A prohibitive law against the ownership of methamphetamines "refuses" people "the personal choice" to own meth.

A prohibitive law against murder "refuses" people "the personal choice" to commit murder.

A prohibitive law against theft "refuses" people "the personal choice" to commit theft.

A prohibitive law against hosting dog fights "refuses" people "the personal choice" to host dog fights.

When you say "to surgically remove her fetus from her body; terminate her pregnancy," all that you really mean is "to commit abortion." You simply chose different words to describe the same thing.

So what are your criticisms?

1. It's a prohibitive law
2. Against abortion.

In other words: it's an anti-abortion law!

I just as easily could object to anti-drug laws on the grounds that it refuses people the personal choice to purchase, own and use drugs. But all that would mean is that I object to anti-drug laws because they are anti-drug laws.

You say ":kookoo:," but that's literally what you're saying. It sounds stupid because it is stupid. That's all that you're saying once you stop using liberal buzz words.

I disapprove of anti-abortion laws (abstract) because of the restrictions they place upon woman/real-world phenomenon.

What precise restriction do they impose? What precise behavior do they prohibit? Abortion.

So, once again, you are giving me the utterly useless tautology: "I disapprove of anti-abortion laws because they are anti-abortion laws."

Well that's really helpful, quip. Thanks!

 

[quip]

This is what you wrote:

"...the state is refusing her the personal choice to surgically remove her fetus from her body; terminate her pregnancy."

Any prohibitive law "refuses" somebody "the personal choice" to do something.

A prohibitive law against the ownership of methamphetamines "refuses" people "the personal choice" to own meth.

A prohibitive law against murder "refuses" people "the personal choice" to commit murder.

A prohibitive law against theft "refuses" people "the personal choice" to commit theft.

A prohibitive law against hosting dog fights "refuses" people "the personal choice" to host dog fights.

Likewise, a law stating that public proselytizing for Christianity is a crime punishable by law.

Could I simply dismiss your concerns against such by claiming "You disapprove of anti-Christianity laws because they are anti-Christianity laws." ?

So what are your criticisms?

1. It's a prohibitive law
2. Against abortion.

In other words: it's an anti-abortion law!

3. She has a constitutional right to privacy; the liberty to make such a choice free from state interference.


You can dumb it down to emotional, tautological "fluff" all you want; the counter position is subject to the same sophistry.

 

[quip]

There's no "should." Either the unborn child is a person and inherently is a subject of right, or else, it isn't.

Then by established law...it doesn't - case closed...right?

Only to note that it amazes me that a Buddhist is having such a difficult time having a reasonable, unempassioned debate.

There's no difficulty here (other than real life demands imposing upon my ToL posting time. ) The issue of abortion is inherently emotional to varying degrees....on either side of the fence.

Give me a non-emotional response to the fact that the law doesn't not grant the unborn equal right-to-life protection as those protecting it's mother.