Most pro-lifers find it understandable in cases of rape and incest because they wish to avoid forcing unimaginable cruelty and torment to a woman by forcing her to carry and birth a child conceived from one of the most horrific events one could experience, and be reminded of the event every time she looks in the mirror.
They may not like it anymore than abortion done under normal circumstances, but they understand it. If they have any sense, that is.
Originally posted by BackFire
Most pro-lifers find it understandable in cases of rape and incest because they wish to avoid forcing unimaginable cruelty and torment to a woman by forcing her to carry and birth a child conceived from one of the most horrific events one could experience, and be reminded of the event every time she looks in the mirror.They may not like it anymore than abortion done under normal circumstances, but they understand it. If they have any sense, that is.
I understand that, it just doesn't fit with the "The fetus is a human and has rights to his live too"...cause, if that's the case, then even rape being horrific shouldn't take away that right to live. Really, someone that holds that believe either admits that a) yeah, a fetus is not equal, they are lesser beings and depending on the amount of cruelty their existence creates they can be destroyed or b) people whose fathers were assholes can be killed.
Originally posted by Fallen
i wasn't referring to mormons or other religious sects that entirely condemn abortion. i was referring to those who make exceptions.
The Mormons believe both. The condemn abortion but make exceptions for rape, incest, and medical reasons. They would prefer their members keep their baby even under rape or incest but the leaders will not get onto the members for doing it under rape or incest. Medical reasons is a whole different matter. Mormons are a weeeee bit different than other faiths. We put a lot of trust in science as well as God. In most cases, we would encourage the lady to get an abortion if her doctor said it would kill her once she gets so far into the pregnancy (such as the lady having a very weak heart). That previous example includes prayer, of course.
So, anyway, yeah...we hold that the more righteous thing to do is keep the baby under those said conditions, but we still allow the exceptions with no negative backlash. Can you imagine other members getting angry at a lady who aborts the unborn child of rape? That would be just disgusting, imo. I think that that may have something to do with it.
Originally posted by Fallen
if you consider yourself pro-life (compared to your religious standing), how did the above comment prove any point what so ever?
Wow. It's as if this comment was typed with the forethought that I would reply with what I did.
Simple. Our church is super pro life. If the LDS church had the opportunity to vote on something like prop 8 but for illegalizing abortion, they would encourage their members just has hard, if not more so, to try their best to get it passed. But, they would also make sure that the legislation had the previously discussed exceptions in it.
Do you follow, or do you need another example?
Originally posted by Fallen
yes, exactly. its all rather hypocritical.i can understand being totally and completely against abortion if someone is going to argue that a fetus is just as valuable as a human being, and that there is no room for if's, and's, and but's.
but many religions and pro-life supporters believe its permissible under certain conditions, namely the ones i mentioned. the logic seems flawed, which dismantles the argument completely.
I agree with you on a logical level.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I understand that, it just doesn't fit with the "The fetus is a human and has rights to his live too"...cause, if that's the case, then even rape being horrific shouldn't take away that right to live. Really, someone that holds that believe either admits that a) yeah, a fetus is not equal, they are lesser beings and depending on the amount of cruelty their existence creates they can be destroyed or b) people whose fathers were assholes can be killed.
Some circumstances require exceptions. Rape is one such circumstance, even if it isn't entirely consistent with their view.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The Mormons believe both. The condemn abortion but make exceptions for rape, incest, and medical reasons. They would prefer their members keep their baby even under rape or incest but the leaders will not get onto the members for doing it under rape or incest. Medical reasons is a whole different matter. Mormons are a weeeee bit different than other faiths. We put a lot of trust in science as well as God. In most cases, we would encourage the lady to get an abortion if her doctor said it would kill her once she gets so far into the pregnancy (such as the lady having a very weak heart). That previous example includes prayer, of course.So, anyway, yeah...we hold that the more righteous thing to do is keep the baby under those said conditions, but we still allow the exceptions with no negative backlash. Can you imagine other members getting angry at a lady who aborts the unborn child of rape? That would be just disgusting, imo. I think that that may have something to do with it.
how is it reasonable to believe in both though? it all seems to contradict with one another. "we believe that the fetus is just as valuable as a human being, yet its okay to abort a fetus because of incest, rape, or deficiency." aren't all fetuses supposed to be regarded as equal? or am i missing something completely?
i can understand the concern for the safety of the mother, but any other exceptions don't seem to fit with their original argument. and even if you take up that position, what determines which life is more valuable?
most people argue that the mother is already living her life, which is why she takes priority over the fetus. but on the other hand, you could also argue that the mother has lived a life (regardless of how long or short) and the "child" has not even been given a life to live. its all rather confusing, i know. i'm not even sure what to think on this last part.
Originally posted by dadudemonWow. It's as if this comment was typed with the forethought that I would reply with what I did.
Simple. Our church is super pro life. If the LDS church had the opportunity to vote on something like prop 8 but for illegalizing abortion, they would encourage their members just has hard, if not more so, to try their best to get it passed. But, they would also make sure that the legislation had the previously discussed exceptions in it.
Do you follow, or do you need another example?
i made a typo. i meant pro-choice. you said you consider yourself pro-choice by extreme standards of pro-life. i still don't see how bringing up your faith helps your argument for why abortion is permissible in cases not regarding the health of the mother.
i'm not saying you can't believe in both, because apparently you can (to some). i'm just questioning the validity of believing in both.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with you on a logical level.
touche.
Originally posted by BackFire
Some circumstances require exceptions. Rape is one such circumstance, even if it isn't entirely consistent with their view.
as i stated earlier and as bardock reiterated: the very exceptions that are allowed crumbles the entire argument.
The problem with that stance is that by saying that, you inherently suggest that the pro lifers who then oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest are somehow being more reasonable than those who concede that it's understandable in those situations.
Consistency and stubbornness doesn't necessarily make their stance any stronger, and flexibility doesn't make a stance weaker. If one is going to be pro life, I think it's a much more reasonable stance if they recognize the power of these specific circumstances, as opposed to those who do not for the hollow sake of consistency. Their understanding of abortion in cases of rape and incest doesn't mean they're submitting to the idea that the fetus is therefor not alive or human, they still think it is, they simply think that the life of the mother in this case becomes of greater importance and the danger that could come from forcing a rape victim to give birth to the seed of her attacker takes precedence.
Besides, if you want to attack pro lifers for inconsistency a much more damaging observation of them is that many of these same people are actively in favor of the death penalty. Being in favor of killing someone who is absolutely and beyond doubt alive renders their stance of pro life irrelevant since being for the death penalty is as as much an absolute pro death stance as you can get.
I very much disagree. I believe a logical consitency in an argument makes it much more valid, while illogical reasoning shows that something is incorrect. In this case, the claim that they see the fetus as "equal human being with the same rights", as, if that was the case, they shouldn't be "murdered" even in cases of rape.
And, I would derive from that, that pro-lifers who oppose abortion generally are indeed more consistent with their reasoning, but I'd say that they start from a faulty assumption, which I think the pro-lifers that accept it in the case of abortion at least sub consciously realize.
[edit] About the death penalty, that has been pointed out various times, before. This is 710 page thread, I think we covered all sorts of hypocrisies on either side (if there are some), and at the moment we are talking about this one, which you, I guess, find minor compared to others.
[edit2] On top of that, this is about a specific case of people who believe both the fetus to be an equal human and that it should be killed if conceived by rape. People who are pro life for other reasons (if there are any) and think rape should be an exception...that's fair enough, they probably have no flawed reasoning. This thought experiment, imo, is really just to point out to pro-lifers who hold that view, that it is a bit idiotic, and they already seem to agree.
[edit] And dadudemon, I think your problem is that you constantly state that Mormons believe what Fallen claimed, you never say why it is in any way logical, to believe both. But also, I think you forget the major part of her scenario, to believe that a fetus is an equal human with the same rights.
OK, so I’m going to play a little bit of the devil’s advocate here. So lets say that the fetus has all the rights that a child does. So lets say that the mother is being a bad mom and going out and drinking, eating bad/no food, smoking and other “mother” no-nos so if this was a child she would be considered an unfit mother and the child taken away from her. So how would you take away a fetus, do you implant the fetus in a “foster mother”? Do you satirize the mother so that she cannot have kids tell she proves herself to be a fit mother? You can’t tell the mother to stop doing these things because they are legal and she has the right to do them, does here status of a person now change because of this? Does here legal status as an individual now change because she is with child?
Originally posted by Fallen
how is it reasonable to believe in both though? it all seems to contradict with one another. "we believe that the fetus is just as valuable as a human being, yet its okay to abort a fetus because of incest, rape, or deficiency." aren't all fetuses supposed to be regarded as equal? or am i missing something completely?
I agree. However, I don't think it would be right, even by God, to force a women to keep a child that she got through being raped. However, it only stands to reason that she would be rewarded even more so for righteousness for keeping the child. That's ridiculously selfless of a lady to do that. Very admirable.
Think of it this way:
Pretend a "good and bad scale" that ranged from -10 to 10. (Because I love RPGs and it works for me. 😠 )
The women nets herself 0 points on the good-bad scale if she aborts the embryo that came from a rape.
However, she nets herself +5 or even +9 (depending on how horrific and difficult the decision to make the more righteous choice was...because God knows that keeping the child for one is much much more difficult for some than others...so it would be a more benevolent thing to do for some over others) if she decides to keep the child and raise it as best as she can.
I personally think that a rape victim should find out as soon as possible whether or not they are preggers from the rape and then abort it before it gets too far along. Just wallowing away in your depression while "thinking" about it is bad. If you can't decide, abort it. That's just my cold hearted cynical perspective, though.
Originally posted by Fallen
i can understand the concern for the safety of the mother, but any other exceptions don't seem to fit with their original argument. and even if you take up that position, what determines which life is more valuable?
The medical professionals determine that. Unless I'm missing your reference to something else, I'm assuming you're talking about just the medical portion of it in this statement.
The medical side of it, imo, isn't debatable. Sure, faulty medical decisions can be made and someone will abort under wrong interpretation of data, but that person will not be held accountable by society or God. If the doctor says "abort it to save your life because you can't carry it full term without killing yourself or killing both of you", it seems adoption is the better way to go if the person or couple wants a baby. That's actually a major "duh" to me.
Also, if you can't afford to adopt, you shouldn't be getting preggers anyway. 😄 Kids are money. 😠
Anyway, yeah...medical side. Not debatable.
Originally posted by Fallen
most people argue that the mother is already living her life, which is why she takes priority over the fetus. but on the other hand, you could also argue that the mother has lived a life (regardless of how long or short) and the "child" has not even been given a life to live. its all rather confusing, i know. i'm not even sure what to think on this last part.
That's not what comes into question, though
It is not absolute, but they can generally tell when it is stupid idea to get pregnant. It's not as complicated as you have listed above.
Of course, I've spoken to people in my faith who were told that the mother and baby were going to die because the mother couldn't carry the baby through the gestation period...but they prayed and God "told them" to keep the baby and they'd live and so would the baby. They and their babies lived, of course, because they told me the story. 😐
Either God had a hand in sparing both or the doctors were overly cautious in their assumptions. Take your pick.
Originally posted by Fallen
i made a typo. i meant pro-choice.
That's a helluva typo. 😄
Originally posted by Fallen
you said you consider yourself pro-choice by extreme standards of pro-life.
No I didn't. I've been talking about my religions beliefs on the subject and I never stated it that way.
Originally posted by Fallen
i still don't see how bringing up your faith helps your argument for why abortion is permissible in cases not regarding the health of the mother.
If that's the case, then we can move along. I'ts been explained on multiple occasions by my self and others. If it doesn't click by now, we both are just wasting our time.
No, that is not an insult because "you can't get it." Sometimes, one just has to agree that they'll never understand another's opinion. If you can't understand the logic in my Church's or other Church's position by now, it probably won't make sense for quite some time.
Originally posted by Fallen
i'm not saying you can't believe in both, because apparently you can (to some). i'm just questioning the validity of believing in both.
I personally believe in pro-choice in the secular world. The churches have a right to have their own beliefs and enforce those beliefs on its members up to and including excommunication. That's the way it should work in a nicely governed society. But stupid dumb ass theists think it's their place to dictate their beliefs on others not part of their faith.
A**HOLES!
Originally posted by Fallen
touche.
Ahhh. The french version of tooshie.
Originally posted by Fallen
as i stated earlier and as bardock reiterated: the very exceptions that are allowed crumbles the entire argument.
Unless, of course, the religious institution still believes the baby is an important life but makes an exception because of the "cruelty" element.
Originally posted by dadudemonOr Satan, Buda or (Insert gods name here) or just that the doctors got it wrong or missed something or here body adapted to her current medical condition. There are plenty of other explanations as to this then just your god jumping in to save this one baby and all the others die. I've always hated that if the doctor said it would happen this way and it didn't then God had to jump in.
Either God had a hand in sparing both or the doctors were overly cautious in their assumptions. Take your pick.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Or Satan, Buda or (Insert gods name here) or just that the doctors got it wrong or missed something or here body adapted to her current medical condition. There are plenty of other explanations as to this then just your god jumping in to save this one baby and all the others die. I've always hated that if the doctor said it would happen this way and it didn't then God had to jump in.
Excuse me Mr. Serious pants. 😆
How the hell could you not tell that that sentence was full of cynicism? It's called dark sarcasm. I was making fun of the theists.
*reads over Da Pittman's post again*
Good Lord, Mr. Grumpy pants.
Originally posted by Da PittmanPersonally, I don't see why people don't do that in the first place.
do you implant the fetus in a “foster mother”?
There are people willing and wanting to carry babies, and killing a fetus is generally not a good thing, so why not do the logical solution and do that?
The major problem is of course, are there enough people willing to carry a baby for the teen junkie? But, I've never seen this point being dicussed, it does make sense, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I very much disagree. I believe a logical consitency in an argument makes it much more valid, while illogical reasoning shows that something is incorrect. In this case, the claim that they see the fetus as "equal human being with the same rights", as, if that was the case, they shouldn't be "murdered" even in cases of rape.And, I would derive from that, that pro-lifers who oppose abortion generally are indeed more consistent with their reasoning, but I'd say that they start from a faulty assumption, which I think the pro-lifers that accept it in the case of abortion at least sub consciously realize.
[edit] About the death penalty, that has been pointed out various times, before. This is 710 page thread, I think we covered all sorts of hypocrisies on either side (if there are some), and at the moment we are talking about this one, which you, I guess, find minor compared to others.
[edit2] On top of that, this is about a specific case of people who believe both the fetus to be an equal human and that it should be killed if conceived by rape. People who are pro life for other reasons (if there are any) and think rape should be an exception...that's fair enough, they probably have no flawed reasoning. This thought experiment, imo, is really just to point out to pro-lifers who hold that view, that it is a bit idiotic, and they already seem to agree.
I actually think then this is much ado about nothing. I think most people who do think that a fetus is absolutely 100% the same as a living human and that abortion is equal to murder probably wouldn't accept it even in cases of rape or incest if they feel that strongly about it.
However, I don't think that's a logical consistency, I think that's stubbornness on their part and they are simply ignoring a very important set of circumstances because of their ideology. I'll say again, stubbornness doesn't make an argument any better, and flexibility where it's necessary doesn't make an argument weaker.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Personally, I don't see why people don't do that in the first place.There are people willing and wanting to carry babies, and killing a fetus is generally not a good thing, so why not do the logical solution and do that?
The major problem is of course, are there enough people willing to carry a baby for the teen junkie? But, I've never seen this point being dicussed, it does make sense, doesn't it?
Or they could just go adopt one of more of the many brown children waiting in the orphanage.That and the likelihood of a fetus taking to a different mother and surviving is probably a bit slim.
Originally posted by BackFire
I actually think then this is much ado about nothing. I think most people who do think that a fetus is absolutely 100% the same as a living human and that abortion is equal to murder probably wouldn't accept it even in cases of rape or incest if they feel that strongly about it.However, I don't think that's a logical consistency, I think that's stubbornness on their part and they are simply ignoring a very important set of circumstances because of their ideology. I'll say again, stubbornness doesn't make an argument any better, and flexibility where it's necessary doesn't make an argument weaker.
I look to people like Sarah Palin, who are against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, as the only ones who are following the thought process to it's logical conclusion despite using no logic in the original thought, at all. If god's will is being done by a conception taking place, then god's will is for that rape baby to exist.
So, I don't respect the thought process in the least, but you have to admit how determined they are to be logically ignorant to the best of their ability. It's pure dedication to the idea that god does everything for a reason; including loosing them the election.