Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Abortion

Mr. George - enlighten as you wish, but kindly remember that my comment had nothing to do with any person who is an actual victim of rape or incest. I think you know full well that I was not talking about those women personally - that I was addressing the individuals who try to apply such "conditions" as ostensibly meaningful stats in discussion about the wholesale killing of babies. I, personally, "have "dealt with" (as you say) women who have been such victims and, beyond trying to be as compassionate as possible, have sometimes practically knocked myself out trying to be of assistance. Those can be horrible events for the women and families involved and the situations can be quite difficult - very challenging at times.

Good point. Since you put it on front street, how many cases of incest and rape have you dealt with that resulted in pregnancy?

Serious question.

It doesn't matter how many different ways people argue this and how heart wrenching the situation. The bottom line is that this is executing an innocent human. All of us could argue the individual circumstances until we're blue in the face. It's still putting a human life to death. A life that has committed no crime and has had no trial. This scenario sucks no matter how you look at it.

Personally.........2 that immediately come too mind. I’m peripherally aware of several more through my “circle”.

I agree that the numbers are low, but each one of those “numbers” is a victim. That’s my trouble with “absolutes”.

George

Thank you George.

While I in no way diminish the violence that has been inflicted on those poor girls, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the national argument. If all we were talking about were a procedure that while rare, was possible for those who had been raped to decide whether to live with the scars and pain that comes with carrying the baby full term vs the pain and scars that comes with killing the baby, then it would be a much smaller conversation.

Should we ban private ownership of firearms based on the instances of kids getting ahold of a gun and having a tragic negligent discharge? Parallels are often hard to draw, but in this instance I believe it fits.

Abortion is personal to me and I've some intimate interaction with it as well, which is where I come from in re my stance on the issue.

If you'd (and maybe you have I dunno) interacted with families after the fact when a kid came in and got hold of a gun and tragedy ensued, would you be of the position that maybe the freedoms enshrined in the 2nd Amendment aren't absolute?

Maybe, maybe not. Lots of disagreement of when human life begins, nobody knows to a rational (non-faith based) certainty. One of the major problems in Roe leading to their trimester approach. That's why I included "risk". The point is you should build a rational framework to analyze your position . Makes the hard cases easier to sort out.

It would help immensely if they reformed the adoption laws. As it is, the adoptive parents can go through hell at the expense of the child.
An example is my niece, once removed. She's a druggie who recently had her 2d out of wedlock kid. My sister & her husband are raising the 1st one, as great grandparents. The 2d she put up for adoption.
The father wanted to live with her but it was a 1 night stand and she didn't even like the guy. He refused to sign his rights away (he actually wanted the welfare money). It went on for a couple months even though the court ruled that he wasn't a fit father. He couldn't show any means of support other than welfare.
Then she admitted that another guy MIGHT be the father. They DNA tested him and it turned out that he WAS the father. He was willing to sign. Meanwhile, a very nice couple who can't have kids was waiting and spending tens of thousands of $$ paying for all of this. He works in Switzerland and they were back and forth a number of times trying to resolve it. They couldn't get a passport for the kid until all this was resolved. It was a colossal mess.

I can see why some women elect abortion rather than deal with child welfare and the courts. Something in the process is broken.

My rational basis for "when life begins" is at the moment of consciousness, some might refer to this as "quickening", or ensoulment, after this point it shouldn't be a choice unless the life of the mother is at serious risk.

I actually have experience with that both professionally and personally during my youth. In a Town as small as where I grew up, I’d have “known” the young man anyway, but in reality he was a year older than I was, rode my bus, and was almost a “brother” to one of my friends. None of that has ever changed my stance on the 2nd.

Also, so you know where I stand........personally, I’m extremely anti/abortion due to both my upbringing and subsequent internal review of the factors involved. I’m also a realist that understands there are exceptions. None of “us” have the right to tell a victim......not a willing participant.....that they “have to”.

Understood.

If we could only roll it back to where that was the only situation(s) involved.

You’ll get no debate from me there.

George

It's alive + It has human DNA -> It's a human life.

You asserting a definition does not make it the most commonly accepted.

We could also examine the other side of that question. What are you responsibilities when it it you who insist another must live?

In ancient Japan, if you prevented a person from committing suicide, you became responsible for the care and well being, feeding, clothing,and sheltering them, or the rest of their life.

Accepting your definition of when life begins for the moment, what principle guides you to reject elective abortion but accept abortion if the life of the mother is at serious risk? Say, taking the life of an innocent is wrong, not a radical point of view. How do you distinguish one case from the other?

That is a tough question but it boils down to that almost universally citizenship and the rights of citizenship are conferred at birth and not before. A pregrant women has the right defend her life if it at serious risk of being lost. If I recall correctly, it wasn't too far in the distant past where 5% of pregnant women lost their lives due comp!ications during pregnancy or during childbirth.

Historically it was a lot more than 5%, especially for first time mothers.

It wasn't all that long ago you needed to birth an average of 8 kids just to get two to adulthood.

Fortunately, that's no longer the world we live in.

Are you now touting "most common;y accepted" as basis for a moral rational framework? If so, what is the moral and rational basis for your tout? if you are not pressing that as a basis, why did you post as you did?

Are you now touting "most common;y accepted" as basis for a moral rational framework? If so, what is the moral and rational basis for your tout? if you are not pressing that as a basis, why did you post as you did?
For a person to advocate and insist on a moral principle, the person need not attempt to to enforce it - and it seems that most do not - they simply advocate and protest. It is the enforcer of a position that must accept responsibility for the effects.

I am against abortion, it is life and it deserves to see how beautiful the world is.