A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

[Aetixintro]

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Like it? Your view?

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)

[Purple Knight]

The previous comment was referencing the argument that a woman should be able to abort a child conceived in rape. Rape is the sin. Abortion would be the punishment. I assume you can see how silly that is. Why would you punish the baby for the sins of his father?

There are children conceived during rape whose mothers and themselves are so grateful that they were not killed yet given the right to life they deserve!!!!

You're actually on the right track in the case of rape and if the fertilised cell is really a person. So here's my genius comment that's honestly going to end the debate if anyone thinks about it for all of two seconds.

In the case of rape, allow the woman to have the abortion and punish the rapist for the murder. You think abortion is murder. Fine. I'll go along with that. The question is who committed that murder. The answer is, THE RAPIST. Clearly.

If I throw a baby in front of a train, who commits the eventual splat? The conductor? The owner of the railroad tracks? The owner of the train? No! The murderer is the one who threw a baby in front of the train. I don't want to hear that he could have stopped in time. That's a red herring. If the conductor truly has an obligation not to run people over, then he's the murderer whether he can stop or not, and that's ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous that I can run on his tracks and if he can possibly, possibly stop, he simply has to. He can't have his own tracks then, and nobody can run a train, since you just gave the tracks to whosoever wants to play on them.

Don't throw babies into hostile environments. That includes in front of trains, off of buildings, and into the uteri of women who don't want them. You throw a baby into a hostile environment and you're a murderer. The train conductor, the owner of the sidewalk, and the women raped have no obligation to catch that baby and save it from the murder that was committed against it, by the rapist.

We shouldn't be talking about the obligations of people to catch falling babies. We should be talking about punishing the people who threw the babies. This would be particularly obvious if women had to open their uteri voluntarily, or else the fertilised cell would never implant. This ability doesn't exist, but it should, if only to teach the lesson that it's flat absurd to suppose you can just throw a baby wherever and it's the owner of whatever it splats against who's the murderer.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 61:

...
If I throw a baby in front of a train, who commits the eventual splat?
...

The baby.

But yeah, don't be throwing no babies in front of trains.

And don't be telling the wimminfolk how to manage their own bodies.