your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[HYHYBT]

This idea also ignores the risks associated to pregnancy, and the fact that a woman is 14 times more likely to die from carrying a baby to term than they ever are from a legal abortion.

Absolutely, 100% false. Stating that the risks are much lower for the woman than for the fetus is not in any rational sense of the word ignoring that risks exist. If you'd like to provide an argument that the risk to the fetus (100% chance of death) is NOT greater than that to the mother (nowhere near 100% death rate from pregnancy, and a significant chance of having no complications at all) then I'm all ears.

The transplant analogy... to me, it doesn't wash, because this seems like a case where the existing state of affairs matters. Saying "unless something goes wrong, you must continue what you're already doing a while longer" is very different than grabbing some random person and saying "I need an organ, so I'll have it off you." Especially when, under normal circumstances, the woman in question made choices that led to the pregnancy. (That a man also made said choices would matter here only if it were possible to pass the pregnancy off onto him.)

As for bringing an unwanted child into the world being a cruel thing to do... it's less cruel than killing one, on the presumption (which I do not hold, but it's the reason for falling back to the "parasite" argument in the first place) that the fetus is as much a person as anyone else.

Again, I'm NOT arguing that abortion should be illegal. I'm not arguing that it's immoral (except perhaps once the fetus is viable.)

[Rebel]

Absolutely, 100% false. Stating that the risks are much lower for the woman than for the fetus is not in any rational sense of the word ignoring that risks exist. If you'd like to provide an argument that the risk to the fetus (100% chance of death) is NOT greater than that to the mother (nowhere near 100% death rate from pregnancy, and a significant chance of having no complications at all) then I'm all ears.

I have put forward to risks associated with pregnancy and the fact that women often die from pregnancy, even with all the medical advancements we have.
Even if the fetus is to be considered a full person then it still does not allow for them to risk the mothers life in order for themselves to live.
As it stands, the fetus relies 100% on the mother to live. This poses a risk to her health and to her life. She has every right to consider herself more important in this situation as she has 100% right to body autonomy and the right to live.

The transplant analogy... to me, it doesn't wash, because this seems like a case where the existing state of affairs matters. Saying "unless something goes wrong, you must continue what you're already doing a while longer" is very different than grabbing some random person and saying "I need an organ, so I'll have it off you."

It is a perfect example. Both 'people' rely on another person to live.
No-one has the right to demand use of another persons body against their will, even if it guarantees their survival. It doesn't matter how small the risk may seem.

Especially when, under normal circumstances, the woman in question made choices that led to the pregnancy. (That a man also made said choices would matter here only if it were possible to pass the pregnancy off onto him.)

And this is what it boils down to.
She had sex so she must now face the consequences.
As much as some people may argue, sexual intercourse is not a contract for a pregnancy.

And until such time as a fetus is able to be moved safely to gestate in the father or a medical device, then the decision to have the baby rests 100% on the woman's shoulders.

As for bringing an unwanted child into the world being a cruel thing to do... it's less cruel than killing one, on the presumption (which I do not hold, but it's the reason for falling back to the "parasite" argument in the first place) that the fetus is as much a person as anyone else.

Except that the children lost in foster care often end up living in poverty, becoming involved in crime, essentially becoming trapped in the never ending cycle that trapped their birth parents.
Unless action is taken to better the situations of the children that are forced through circumstance to live this life, then unwanted children are going to keep being given this same hand in life.
Currently funds are being cut to all social services, education, sex-ed, welfare, etc. Because the person doesn't matter that much once they're born. At least to the people in charge.

Again, I'm NOT arguing that abortion should be illegal. I'm not arguing that it's immoral (except perhaps once the fetus is viable.)

You're right, abortion should not be illegal.
I'm also interested to hear your evidence for abortions happening with a healthy viable fetus being aborted by a heathy (mentally and physically) woman.

[guywithashovel]

I've often felt confused by the people who think abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances---usually cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is threatened. I started a thread on this topic a long time ago, but the answers I got didn't leave me feeling much clearer.

Maybe you really feel that a woman is more justified in getting an abortion if she's pregant due to a rape than if she's getting one because she and her boyfriend had an "oops" moment. Why is the first situation more justified in seeking abortion? Seriously. The same procedure would be done in either situation. I really don't see a reason to allow it in one situation but not in another. When I asked this question, the answer I got was "Well, in the case of rape, she didn't chose to get pregnant." Maybe not, but like I said, it will be the same procedure being done that would be done if she had sex consentually and got pregnant.

Also strange to me are the people who say things like "I support abortion rights, but I still would like to see fewer aboritons done." Why? Really, why? If the fetus really is just an unfeeling cluster of cells, and abortion really is just a medical procedure, then why do you care how often it's done? That's like saying "I support a woman's right to take birth control pills, but I still would like to see fewer women taking them." It leaves almost any listener feeling like "Okay, what's the point in worrying about how often it's done?" The answer I got here was "Well, abortion is expensive, so I just think it's stupid to do it excessively." Maybe so, but unless the abortion is subsidized with public money, it's not YOUR money being spent, so there's no reason to care--unless you're one of those people who thinks a fetus is the same as a person, in which case I'm really not talking to you at this moment.

[Duelist925]

I've often felt confused by the people who think abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances---usually cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is threatened. I started a thread on this topic a long time ago, but the answers I got didn't leave me feeling much clearer.

Maybe you really feel that a woman is more justified in getting an abortion if she's pregant due to a rape than if she's getting one because she and her boyfriend had an "oops" moment. Why is the first situation more justified in seeking abortion? Seriously. The same procedure would be done in either situation. I really don't see a reason to allow it in one situation but not in another. When I asked this question, the answer I got was "Well, in the case of rape, she didn't chose to get pregnant." Maybe not, but like I said, it will be the same procedure being done that would be done if she had sex consentually and got pregnant.

Its not the procedure itself, but the reasons behind it that matter to some. A rape victim shouldn't have to bear the child of her rapist--that is a cruelty that they do not wish to inflict on the mother. Same with if the mothers life is in danger, or incest. (Though incest also carries the whole inbreeding thing as well, as an added reason.)

Also strange to me are the people who say things like "I support abortion rights, but I still would like to see fewer aboritons done." Why? Really, why? If the fetus really is just an unfeeling cluster of cells, and abortion really is just a medical procedure, then why do you care how often it's done? That's like saying "I support a woman's right to take birth control pills, but I still would like to see fewer women taking them." It leaves almost any listener feeling like "Okay, what's the point in worrying about how often it's done?" The answer I got here was "Well, abortion is expensive, so I just think it's stupid to do it excessively." Maybe so, but unless the abortion is subsidized with public money, it's not YOUR money being spent, so there's no reason to care--unless you're one of those people who thinks a fetus is the same as a person, in which case I'm really not talking to you at this moment.

I don't see how thats strange--fewer abortions would be a good thing. And it does not equate to "I support birth control, but would like to see fewer women taking them". its more akin to "I really wish people would be more damn careful when they have sex"

Regardless of whether someone thinks a fetus can think or feel pain, whether or not it is a life, abortion is rarely a <i>good</i> thing. Its can be an incredibly emotional decision for anyone who has to make one, and does bear some medical risks. (not many, but some).

I'd like to see fewer abortions done. But I'd like to see that number drop because people (especially teens) get educated, and start having safer sex and using contraception.

I also fully support a womans right to choose. Neither I, nor the state, has any business or right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Especially considering its the kind of decision I am never going to have to make. Doubly so in cases where it present a danger to the mother, or is due to rape or incest, where bearing the child could be a greater evil.

[s_stabeler]

I've often felt confused by the people who think abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances---usually cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is threatened. I started a thread on this topic a long time ago, but the answers I got didn't leave me feeling much clearer.

pregnant due to rape abortion comes down to one of tow reasons. one being it being cruel to force someone to have a reminder of their rape, and those who believe in women having to suffer the consequences of sex don't think ti should apply if the sex isn't voluntary on the part of the woman.

( interesting question actually- rape isn't always male on female. ( lets not get into an argument about how common the two are in comparison, please. It isn't the point) If you believe fetuses created due to rape should be permissible to abort, does it change if the woman was the rapist?)

health of the mother abortion is simple- would you rather lose one life or two? ( lets not get into the technicalities regarding twins/triplets/however many fetuses can fit into a womb at once w/o rupturing the thing)

incest is again simple- heightened risk of genetic disorders ( and as an aside, as far as i am aware, most cases of incest happen where there is a pattern of incest going back several generations. that significantly heightens the risk of genetic disorders.)

[Andara Bledin]

If the fetus really is just an unfeeling cluster of cells, and abortion really is just a medical procedure, then why do you care how often it's done?

Mostly because it's not an optimal situation. What we would like is for people to be educated to know and understand the various risks involved with various forms of birth control, from pure abstinence all the way to surgical abortion. Surgical abortion is usually the most dangerous of the options because even if it is outpatient surgery, it's still surgery and not without risk.

There are those who choose to remain ignorant about the situation they place themselves in, but a far greater percentage often don't even know they have options, much less how to exercise them.

Regardless of whether someone thinks a fetus can think or feel pain, whether or not it is a life, abortion is rarely a <i>good</i> thing. Its can be an incredibly emotional decision for anyone who has to make one, and does bear some medical risks. (not many, but some).

Don't forget the social stigma, as well. As you can see just from threads on this forum and elsewhere, a lot of people are very negative when even the subject comes up, so imagine how they would react when dealing with someone who has actually had one.

incest is again simple- heightened risk of genetic disorders ( and as an aside, as far as i am aware, most cases of incest happen where there is a pattern of incest going back several generations. that significantly heightens the risk of genetic disorders.)

This was actually discussed and mostly dismissed in another thread on the topic of sexual situations. The potential for genetic disorders between siblings is no greater than the potential from genetic disorders from a father who has reached middle age. It takes generations of inbreeding to produce the types of disorders we all think of when talking about it.

^-.-^

[s_stabeler]

I'm not saying that isn't the case, I'm simply saying why incest is generally included where people talk about abortion only in certain circumstances.

[Duelist925]

I'm not saying that isn't the case, I'm simply saying why incest is generally included where people talk about abortion only in certain circumstances.

Because it carries a risk of genetic mutation (Not as much as most people believe, not nearly as much) and also due to social stigma. Theres a cultural stigma against incest, an incredibly strong one, which can easily have an incredibly detrimental affect on both the mother, and the child, should it ever learn of its parentage.

[s_stabeler]

Duelist, notice I didn't have a question mark there? that was what I was saying before.

[Duelist925]

Duelist, notice I didn't have a question mark there? that was what I was saying before.

My bad. Sorry about that. >.<

[HYHYBT]

I have put forward to risks associated with pregnancy and the fact that women often die from pregnancy, even with all the medical advancements we have.

And I have disputed none of them. I was disputing only your claim that I was *ignoring* them when I plainly was not, but was instead simply saying that they are less than the risk to the fetus.

I'm also interested to hear your evidence for abortions happening with a healthy viable fetus being aborted by a heathy (mentally and physically) woman.

I'd like to hear why I should provide any, since I haven't claimed that there are significant numbers of women getting such abortions in the first place. All I've said is that they *shouldn't* happen. Whether they do in fact happen or not has no bearing on whether they ought to.

Because it carries a risk of genetic mutation (Not as much as most people believe, not nearly as much) and also due to social stigma. Theres a cultural stigma against incest, an incredibly strong one, which can easily have an incredibly detrimental affect on both the mother, and the child, should it ever learn of its parentage.

Also, aren't most cases of incest a matter of abuse? Technically that might fall into the "rape" category, but enough might think of it differently enough to list separately.

[Sarah Valentine]

Was there ever any follow up, is the girl ok, did that evil scumbag get thrown in jail?

[crashhelmet]

Was there ever any follow up, is the girl ok, did that evil scumbag get thrown in jail?

No, Sarah. There never was a follow up that I could find.

[Andara Bledin]

From the bottom of the article linked in the OP:

"The stepfather, who is 23, was arrested last week, apparently trying to escape to another region of the country."

Since there are no names in the article other than that of the doctors church officials, and a political official, it's exceedingly difficult to find any additional details.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

From the bottom of the article linked in the OP:

"The stepfather, who is 23, was arrested last week, apparently trying to escape to another region of the country."

Since there are no names in the article other than that of the doctors church officials, and a political official, it's exceedingly difficult to find any additional details.

^-.-^

That's my bad. He was arrested, but there has never been any follow up on whether or not he was convicted, whether or not the Church eventually Excommunicated him, or if he's even still alive. There's no follow up on how the girl and her mother have been getting by. There's no follow up what so ever outside of the conflict caused within the leadership of the Church.