Democratic National Convention

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:42 am

marina wrote:

Personally, maybe I would not kill the violinist maybe ever. maybe I'd be strong enough to keep him alive at great cost to myself and maybe I wouldn't. Like if his life cause me great mental health anguish and I could only sit curled up in a corner and sob all day 24/7, maybe I wouldn't keep him alive.

But how can I make that judgment call for someone else?

I didn't mean "would you kill him" but rather "should you". Should you not face repercussions for his death when you were the one to plug him in without his consent? I'm not saying you wouldn't deserve compassion and sympathy and all the help you need. But should you have the legal right to kill him?

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 12:49 pm

marina wrote:

Say I sleep with a metal shield on my back to prevent just this kind of violinist attachment. The metal shield is replaced by a plastic one by a sneaky person who likes violinists. Or the metal shield company sends me a defective shield. I did not consent to this at all.

No you plugged the violinist to yourself.
We all (should) know that coitus can result in pregnancy.
You took all possible precautions, but you know that nothing is 100% effective and now something went wrong.

Why are we even quibbling over scenarios when contraceptives don't work or even if the partner tricked the woman? That's a tiny tiny percent of all pregnancies.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 1:04 pm

marina wrote:

The problem with compassionate argument for crime is there are many instances where I can't imagine following the law.
If my son committed a crime can I know for sure that I would turn him in or even not help him hide evidence? My heart would break for a parent facing such a dilemma, and I would feel only compassion for one who couldn't betray their child. Nonetheless, I don't advocate decriminalizing accessory laws.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 1:24 pm

sushilover wrote:

1. Yes, coitus can result in pregnancies- despite our best efforts, and similarly, dating men can result in rape- despite our best efforts. It may sound abhorrent, but there is no difference. A risk is a risk.

2. First, for Lilac, at least, this entire discussion is about an abortion post viability- less than 2% of all abortions in the country. So we're already quibbling over tiny percentages.

And next, no way is failed birth control responsible only for a tiny percentage of abortions.

This is from guttenmacher:

Quote:

Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively). The male condom was the most commonly reported method among all women (28%), followed by the pill (14%). Inconsistent method use was the main cause of pregnancy for 49% of condom users and 76% of pill users; 42% of condom users cited condom breakage or slippage as a reason for pregnancy. Substantial proportions of pill and condom users indicated perfect method use (13-14%). As many as 51,000 abortions were averted by use of emergency contraceptive pills in 2000.

So here we have 13-14% reporting perfect use, still resulting in pregnancy, meaning a third party was necessarily at fault, if they are to be believed. And this is not in conflict with the 99% statistic, because the 13-14% is out of all abortions and 99% is out of all users of a particular method, of which there are many. Anyway, definitely not a tiny percentage.

Essentially, your position requires a woman to only have intercourse if she is prepared to deliver and raise a child, no matter the disability. Even if she uses 3 different birth control methods at the same time, nothing is foolproof, so she would be equivalent to a person who voluntarily attaches the violinist?

I think it's unfair to allow relations only for those who accept the consequences of a potential pregnancy even if they take all possible precautions to prevent it. Take driving, if you don't like the rape comparison. I drive each day and take all possible measures to prevent fatal accidents. But nothing is foolproof. An accident can happen through no fault of my own, other than that I got into the car that day. A child, for example, can dart into the street in front on my car and there's no way I could have avoided it. The child is now dead and am I responsible morally and financially for that? What if the child's mother wasn't paying attention- what if a third party caused this? What if the manufacturer's brakes failed because of faulty production? Am I still responsible even if the only thing I did wrong was get behind the wheel that day?

Should we allow driving only for those who are emotionally and financially ready to take full responsibility in case of accidents that they literally could not have prevented other than not driving at all? Accidents that perhaps a third party actually caused? If we make this rule, no one would drive. Same for relations.

marina

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 1:33 pm

sushilover wrote:

So if you would feel only compassion, would you judge as wrong the jury who sentences this father for accessory? If I feel only compassion for someone, I don't think they deserve a punishment. To deserve a punishment, I have to feel that the person did something really really wrong.

And is that how you imagine criminalizing abortion would play out? The woman who gets an abortion would be tried by a jury of her peers and the outcome would depend on whether someone on that jury is compassionate?

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 4:08 pm

marina wrote:

Essentially, your position requires a woman to only have intercourse if she is prepared to deliver and raise a child, no matter the disability. Even if she uses 3 different birth control methods at the same time, nothing is foolproof, so she would be equivalent to a person who voluntarily attaches the violinist?

I think it's unfair to allow relations only for those who accept the consequences of a potential pregnancy even if they take all possible precautions to prevent it.

Unfair true. It's also unfair that men don't have to face the same consequences for intercourse as women do. But it's a fact that pregnancy is a result of ssex. An adult has to face the consequences and cannot just kill the baby even if they took every possible precaution. (Except for rape. I refuse to accept that a woman could be held liable for rape. Ever. I simply cannot understand your reasoning.)

It's a complicated and emotional problem. Americans will need to grapple with these questions and come up with moral answers.We may have to change our approach to many things including how we perceive ssex and personal responsibility. But if the majority of Americans believe that a fetus deserves the right to life at least, then we cannot sit back and allow thousands of babies to be killed. People are worried that it will lead to mothers' health being compromised? Let's deal with that too! But you can't just take this issue and say "it's too complicated -let's just kill the babies."!
I compared this to slavery a few pages back. I remember reading Patrick Henry's defense of slavery. He was morally against slavery, but felt that in practice emancipation would lead to chaos and the death of the freed slaves .(he wasn't wrong, btw.)
You are bringing up many valid arguments that prove that abortion is not a black and white issue and limiting it will have many far reaching consequences. But it doesn't mean the answer is to continue killing innocent babies!

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 4:17 pm

marina wrote:

I think it's unfair to allow relations only for those who accept the consequences of a potential pregnancy even if they take all possible precautions to prevent it. Take driving, if you don't like the rape comparison. I drive each day and take all possible measures to prevent fatal accidents. But nothing is foolproof. An accident can happen through no fault of my own, other than that I got into the car that day. A child, for example, can dart into the street in front on my car and there's no way I could have avoided it. The child is now dead and am I responsible morally and financially for that? What if the child's mother wasn't paying attention- what if a third party caused this? What if the manufacturer's brakes failed because of faulty production? Am I still responsible even if the only thing I did wrong was get behind the wheel that day?

Should we allow driving only for those who are emotionally and financially ready to take full responsibility in case of accidents that they literally could not have prevented other than not driving at all? Accidents that perhaps a third party actually caused? If we make this rule, no one would drive. Same for relations.

This analogy is a mess from beginning to end. Someone who had consensual ssex , conceived a child and then aborted the fetus is both putting the child into harm's way (unintentionally, to be sure) and killing the child. Comparing it to an accident makes no sense. Abortion is not an accident.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 4:25 pm

marina wrote:

No the jury only have to feel that the person did something illegal for them to condemn the parent for his/her crimes.
Here's a story of a girl who shot and killed her boyfriend a few days after he raped her. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10......html
Do I understand her? Absolutely. I feel nothing but compassion for her. But was the jury wrong for convicting her of homicide? NO. She did murder him.

amother

Aubergine

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 6:53 pm

sushilover wrote:

I am not following your logic.

You say a fetus is a human but if that fetus/human's father is their mother's rapist then they can be aborted. Now a child who is alive you would not say it can be killed because it's father is their mother's rapist. Therefore I have to conclude that you really don't equate a fetus as equal with a born human being.

PinkFridge

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 8:53 pm

sushilover wrote:

There is a pasuk in Haazinu (Devarim 32:4) : Hatzur tamim pa'alo ki chol derachav mishpat, Kail emuna ein avel tzaddik...yashar Hu. Hashem's justice is perfect. All His ways are just, He is faithful with no fault. It's hard to see (that whole when bad things happen to good people) but we believe that Hashem's actions are perfect. As I was taught, a human judge has to judge the case in front of him/her according to civil law. Hashem, in determining the judgment to be meted out, will consider how this will effect the family and others as well as well as many other factors that we don't see, but it all works out.

sushilover

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 10:11 pm

amother wrote:

Good question. I can actually write an article length post about that, but I'll try to keep it to the main points.
1)There is a significant minority of pro-lifers who believe 'punish the rapist, not the child' and their argument is sound. The act was vile but the child is innocent and should not die if there is no danger to the mother.
Others argue that the act of carrying the child would be so traumatic to some mothers that it should fall into the realm of causing harm to the mother and be an exception.
2) Rape cases can be compared to the violinist analogy Marina quoted . The mother was essentially "kidnapped" and forced to bear the child, so she cannot be compelled to continue to carry it. It doesn't mean that the child's life is worth less than the mother's. Just as the violinist's life is not worth less than yours.
3) Previously in this thread I've been accused of trying to force my moral principles on others. I have no such intentions.Morals are determined by religious values (generally unchanging) and by a majority of our culture (can change slowly).Leaving religion out of it, I simply believe that the majority of our culture values the life of the unborn. I believe that if fear were taken out of the equation(Women will die without our abortion rights!), most Americans would agree that a fetus is a person and deserves life except under extreme circumstances.

When it comes to the morals of abortion for rape, I think that most of the people in our culture would feel it is our moral duty to make an exception for rape victims. (For the reasons I gave above and for many other reasons. )
I have like four more that I can think of right now which I'd be happy to list if anyone is interested. Somehow I have a feeling there are like 2 people reading this thread besides for us. LOL

Last edited by sushilover on Tue, Aug 09 2016, 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Lilac

Tue, Aug 09 2016, 11:02 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

Again, I'm referring to a baby that is fully developed and formed, and would live just fine if it were delivered then and there, instead of aborted.

I am completely unfamiliar with the subset of American women who, in their 8th month of pregnancy abort their healthy babies because they decide that a baby is now suddenly inconvenient.
I'm sure these people do exist and I addressed this argument above, but I would like to see some narratives from them or about them. Can you offer some links I can read specifically about these types of people? I prefer links with these people explaining their own story instead of others explaining it for them. Thx

Here are some actual numbers. 1% of all abortions are performed in the third trimester. That's 9,000 abortions / year.

George Tiller (assassinated abortionist) said that in only 800 out of 10,000 abortions he performed, did the fetuses have abnormalities.

http://healthresearchfunding.o.....tics/

A study was apparently done on the topic, seeking to address the question of why women have late-term abortions.
It concluded,
"Abortion rights advocates have long insisted that late-term abortions are performed only in dire circumstances involving threats to a mother’s life or in cases of severe fetal anomaly. However, the above study, despite its limitations, suggests otherwise."
https://lozierinstitute.org/th.....ures/