Rubio - no exceptions for rape & incest?

I Love America said:
Apples and oranges.

The death penalty is easy. That person had a choice in their behavior. The unborn doesn't.

War should not be taken lightly, but it is a fact if life.
Click to expand...


Every person in the world has a natural right to defend themselves, their families and their possessions.....thus, we will have wars......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Except, like Rubio, you're a man and will never get pregnant so you're opinion on the matter, like Rubio's, means exactly J Shit.
Click to expand...


So if you are a women, as it stands now, you have a right to kill your unborn child for any reason or no reason, I find that somewhat absolute and irrational too.....

but thats the law....born from your right to privacy.....if your neighbor peeks in your window, can you kill him too.....
 
Patrick Bateman said:
yeah it makes no sense. If you truly believe it is a human life then exceptions for rape or incest should be immaterial. You wouldn't kill a baby born of incest or rape, so why would they sanction the killing of what they believe to be a human in those circumstances? It makes zero sense. It just shows they are trying to control women's sexual habits or something. I have much more respect for those that say no abortion under any circumstance. At least that is a consistent philosophy.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Click to expand...

Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate rights, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, a woman does not violate any moral obligation; rather, a woman who carries her pregnancy to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Except, like Rubio, you're a man and will never get pregnant so you're opinion on the matter, like Rubio's, means exactly J Shit.
Click to expand...

What a load of crap! You are not black, does that prevent you from having a valid and meaningful opinion about racism?

The unborn child is a human being- I believe granting women a ridiculous right to kill them is a gross misuse and abuse of the Constitution.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So what are you waiting for?

Oh yeah, you sure do LOVE to TALK a big game, how bout just this once you back it up with some action?

You think the poor should die?

Then get out there and start killing.
Click to expand...

im not going to out a bullet in their heads. But we can close homeless shelters, stop kitchens, programs to give homeless blankets during cold months, etc.
 
NOVA said:
So if you are a women, as it stands now, you have a right to kill your unborn child for any reason or no reason, I find that somewhat absolute and irrational too.....

but thats the law....born from your right to privacy.....if your neighbor peeks in your window, can you kill him too.....
Click to expand...

It is not illegal but neither is it a right. Let's be clear about that.
 
Jean said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_Violinist

In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:



Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate rights, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, a woman does not violate any moral obligation; rather, a woman who carries her pregnancy to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.
Click to expand...


Yup I agree with all of that. I've read it before. It's a great analogy. I think in the past it pushed me over the edge from reluctant abortionist to full on.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
It's an embryo. That's why we call it something different. You and me are not embryos which is why when you meet someone you don't say "hey what's up embryo?"
Click to expand...

And sometimes it's an infant or a teenager an adult or a newborn. But at every one of those points and all the rest it's a unique homosapien.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
It's an embryo. That's why we call it something different. You and me are not embryos which is why when you meet someone you don't say "hey what's up embryo?"
Click to expand...

And an embryo is a complete human being, albeit at its earliest stage. An infant likewise is at an early stage of development...and it can say "hey what's up".
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
Are you asking if it's a choice to be raped or is it a choice to become pregnant from being raped? I don't understand what you are asking me.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't.

Cowgirl Tuff said:
I personally would not have an abortion for any reason, not even rape. As for incest I would also never have a relationship with a relative.
Click to expand...

Do you think the girls who are raped by their fathers etc. wanted to "have a relationship with a relative"?
 
J Craft said:
And an embryo is a complete human being, albeit at its earliest stage. An infant likewise is at an early stage of development...and it can say "hey what's up".
Click to expand...

No it's not a complete human being. A complete human being has a brain, complete arms and legs, fully developed organs, etc.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
No it's not a complete human being. A complete human being has a brain, complete arms and legs, fully developed organs, etc.
Click to expand...

All of which are parts of natural development. The only thing neccesary is not additional dna, but time. As an infant requires time to sit up, crawl, walk, feed itself, talk- and the toddler requires time to be able to learn to read, write, grow into a child, then time to become adolescent, then adult.

Brain activity has begun at 40 days- legs and arms begin to grow at 45 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top