Paul Ryan: Rape "another form of conception"

[valet]

Blastula aren't children to me, and to be honest neither are fetuses.

I'm fine with abortion up till 2nd trimester personally, although I don't think its really up to men at all what women do with their bodies, that's on them.

Yes, that's where the root of the debate where we won't agree. Where life begins.

 

[valet]

I doubt you'd feel the same way if it was your mother, sister, or girlfriend that was raped and impregnated.

My belief is not based on who the person is. If so, then I don't truly believe it. I hold the same feeling for all children.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Yes, that's where the root of the debate where we won't agree. Where life begins.

No, I concede that it is not ethically justifiable to to end a life in any circumstance apart from self defense or for the greater good of society. However, I just don't place premiums on human life as some sort of sacred cow, especially human life that isnt self sufficient like a fetus, and i certainly think this position is correct 100%

Your position is that the right to life of the zygote/embryo/fetus outweighs the violations of rights of the sentient human rape victim carrying it. Even if you don't think the woman has a right to abort, you are still saying that it's ok that the rest of the rights that you conceded are violated during rape continue to be violated through the unwanted pregnancy. That is a rapist's dream come true.

Rights of the mother uber alles. It's not a matter for men to decide what women do with their bodies. That's just another form of controlling.

 

[valet]

It is pro-rapist, though. You already conceded points 1 and 2, which means that you necessarily have to concede point 3.

Your position is that the right to life of the zygote/embryo/fetus outweighs the violations of rights of the sentient human rape victim carrying it. Even if you don't think the woman has a right to abort, you are still saying that it's ok that the rest of the rights that were violated during rape continue to be violated through the unwanted pregnancy. That is a rapist's dream come true.

Basically, I'm just highlighting the necessary dark side of your position that you're avoiding in your own presentation of it. This is the necessary price for being anti-choice with no exceptions.

No, I'm saying a child shouldn't have to die because it's father was a rapist. The focus is on the child. The act is terrible but that defenseless innocent child dying is what's in question. What the act is, is the focus. We wouldn't have the same logic outside of the womb. No one would say it's ok to kill a child because they remind them of their rapist. Whether it's rapist dream come true is not the main point. He may want that but that has nothing to do whether that child should live or not.

 

[valet]

No, I concede that it is not ethically justifiable to to end a life in any circumstance apart from self defense or for the greater good of society. However, I just don't place premiums on human life as some sort of sacred cow, especially human life that isnt self sufficient like a fetus, and i certainly think this position is correct 100%



Rights of the mother uber alles. It's not a matter for men to decide what women do with their bodies. That's just another form of controlling.

What's more of a "sacred cow" then life? What's higher then that?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

What's more of a "sacred cow" then life? What's higher then that?

A potential human life is not worth compromising the rights of the living. That's all.

 

[The Real]

No, I'm saying a child shouldn't have to die because it's father was a rapist. The focus is on the child.

Yes, I understand that, and that's a valid opinion, but that focus doesn't absolve you from the rest of the argument. To run with this language, I'm just shifting focus to the other half of your position so we can bring that to light. It might not be something you want to deal with, but it's a necessary consequence of your position, especially since you already conceded that rape involved these violations.

You already know that these violations are extended by the unwanted pregnancy, you just don't think that matters more than the life of the embryo/zygote/fetus. Rather, you think it's a necessary burden the woman must bear because she doesn't have the right to abort. I don't think that's an unfair or skewed characterization of your position, but that also makes it pro-rapist at the same time as it is pro-zygote/embryo/fetus.

 

[DANKTHRONE]

Judith Jarvis Thomson has an argument that, for the sake of argument, grants the untenable premise that life begins at conception. It runs

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. ... To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

What would you say in response to this argument valet? Why should a women allow an unwanted parasite access to her biological equipment? Doesn't that significantly ruin her quality of life? Are their any just killings, and if so couldn't an abortion provided to a rape victim be one?

Please respond, I wonder if you have thought your position through.

 

[valet]

A potential human life is not worth compromising the rights of the living. That's all.

So, it's not alive but potentially alive? Because I originally stated that the root of the debate is when life begins. If it's potentially alive then I was correct in my assertion.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

So, it's not alive but potentially alive? Because I originally stated that the root of the debate is when life begins. If it's potentially alive then I was correct in my assertion.

Until it's out the vagina, its not a self-sufficient organism to me

"potentially" means it will become an independent life upon delivery. That is not the root of the debate, this threads debate is whether its ethical to force women to keep rape babies.

 

[valet]

Yes, I understand that, and that's a valid opinion, but that focus doesn't absolve you from the rest of the argument. To run with this language, I'm just shifting focus to the other half of your position so we can bring that to light. It might not be something you want to deal with, but it's a necessary consequence of your position, especially since you already conceded that rape involved these violations.

You already know that these violations are extended by the unwanted pregnancy, you just don't think that matters more than the life of the embryo/zygote/fetus. Rather, you think it's a necessary burden the woman must bear because she doesn't have the right to abort. I don't think that's an unfair or skewed characterization of your position, but that also makes it pro-rapist at the same time as it is pro-zygote/embryo/fetus.

As long as it's not twisted to say that a person is in favor of the act of rape....

 

[The Real]

As long as it's not twisted to say that a person is in favor of the act of rape....

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

 

[valet]

Judith Jarvis Thomson has an argument that, for the sake of argument, grants the untenable premise that life begins at conception. It runs

What would you say in response to this argument valet? Why should a women allow an unwanted parasite access to her biological equipment? Doesn't that significantly ruin her quality of life? Are their any just killings, and if so couldn't an abortion provided to a rape victim be one?

Please respond, I wonder if you have thought your position through.

I can definitely see the parallels in this and the pro life position. But where it fails is that the child isn't a parasite leeching off the mom. It belongs there. It's in it's natural place. 2ndly, this isn't totally what's going on with abortion. A more fair analogy would be this woman slicing up this dude Black Mamba style, killing em. 3rd, with abortion this isn't a stranger she responsible for. That's the CHILD'S MAMA. And the mama has the responsiblity to take care of her child. So that's my thoughts on that.

 

[valet]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

As long as it's not being twisted that somehow a pro life person is ok with the act of rape because her "rights" don't supercede the right of the child.

 

[The Real]

As long as it's not being twisted that somehow a pro life person is ok with the act of rape because her "rights" don't supercede the right of the child.

I don't think you're ok with the initial act of rape, but I think you are ok with extending that act of rape in the form of unwanted pregnancy once it has already happened, in the name of the zygote/embryo/fetus. And I do find that disagreeable, of course, but that's what these debates are always about.

And why did you put "rights" in quotation marks with respect to the woman but not to the zygote? The same rights that were violated in rape are the ones violated by the unwanted pregnency that follows it, and you already agreed that those rights are valid in the first place.