• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Post rape/incest termination is interfering with the evidence?


Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
No matter how fruitcakey things get here, you can be sure that somewhere in the American backwoods, they're going to be much much fruitcakier.

A lawmaker in New Mexico is introducing a bill which could lead to three year prison sentences for rape or incest victims if they procure a termination of the pregnancy. The basis for this proposed law is that such a termination constitutes tampering with the evidence.

It's hard to know where to start with such lunacy. For starters, it seems that state Representative Cathrynn Brown (yes, a woman but unsurprisingly a Republican) has never heard of DNA analysis on foetuses. But then, coming from the party that speaks of "legitimate rape", the only wonder is that the proposed three year sentence isn't even longer.

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
 


Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
If someone feels like moaning about yet another abortion thread, feel free. When I came across this story last night, I wasn't going to start a thread on it but lo and behold, I see that overnight, yet another abortion thread has been started with the mods taking no action.

So, there seems to be no point in restraining oneself. When it comes to abortion threads, it's a free for all. If the mods are going to start cutting down, I'm happy for this thread to be merged somewhere as long as the one from last night about the Washington pro-life rally is treated the same way.

Consistency is the key.

*Looking at Sync*
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,876
A more entertaining argument would be that abortion denies the kid a future Tarantino-syle revenge on the rapist(s) of his mother.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
I would think it a spurious reason why a lady should carry the child after being raped; even though I agree with the eventual outcome.

There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape. Here is an answer to back up this statement that I submitted on another thread.

Abortion should not be permitted in Rape cases.


Your argument for exceptional cases goes back, I guess, to the beginning of time i.e. eating the apple :)

  • However, we might leave these people in the garden and go forward scores of thousands of years to roughly two thousand, five hundred years ago; when Sophocles and Plato grappled this question.

    You are trying to make the case for the exceptional situation, which I can fully sympathise with you and understand. You have by your answer accepted that I have made a good case for greater number of situations that may arise.

    You have to remember as well that we are not dealing with an inanimate object (materialism); it is proven that the baby in the womb, has a full and distinctive human genome, is self aware and has the capacity to grow into a full life outside the womb.

    Our two friends have agreed that the number one Principle of Reason is that the best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data i.e. the Principle of Complete Explanation.
    .
  • If as you think that the victim of rape should not be re-victimised; this is bringing in a subjective opinion which ranks second to the more objective one of not taking a life.

    In effect, satisfying the victim of rape does not justify the means of doing so. In other words, one cannot use an evil means to achieve a good end! (Augustine)
    .
  • Another argument against your exceptional case is that long held legal opinion that "hard cases make bad law". Although Equity should be used to mitigate the hardship: proper counselling as to the value of life.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,631
What an idiotic suggestion.

I guess that the paramedics who move the victim of a shooting are interfering with evidence. Ditto the doctors who remove the bullet, stitch the wounds, and clean any gunpowder residue from the skin.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
This was my previous post in the same thread

I do not buy this argument that abortion is a logical follow on to rape. The act of rape is an abomination of the primary and glorious role that women have in the continuation of the human race. For rape to happen; there is most probably a breakdown in community relations somewhere back the line. If a woman is with child after a rape; this subsequent event is the start of a new life which must be cherished and protected. It is a new beginning, a new hope; a new light that out of badness; goodness emerges.

I am trying to think of an example in a different scenario which can give somewhat of an indication to what I am trying to say. I think of Hitler and his multitude of inglorious actions in defilement of the true nature of mankind. What light came from this dark period in the history of mankind?

  • I think of all the German babies that were born, suppositively to build up the Super Race. These children later went on to build a very successful country from the ashes of the Nazi regime. We, today, are looking to the children of those children for succour in our hour of need.
  • I think of the autobahns running the length and breath of Germany that were build by his regime in the 30s. The “peoples’ car” founded by Ferdinand Porsche under the Nazi Regime. These helped to instil in the post war Germans a confidence that they need not use military methods to display their ingenuity and desire for dominance; I am sure that these roads also encouraged the further development of the motor car; an industry that has been/still is dominated by post war Germany.

The victorious Allied forces did not destroy the autobahns or kill the children so nourished by the Nazi regime, in order to obliterate the memory of fowl deeds as sign of atonement. I shudder to think, if the war took place under the social regime currently in the Victorious Allied countries; that they would have acted differently? :cool:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,631
I would think it a spurious reason why a lady should carry the child after being raped; even though I agree with the eventual outcome.

There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape. Here is an answer to back up this statement that I submitted on another thread.

Abortion should not be permitted in Rape cases.
The argument that the victim of the rape has dominion over her own body is legitimate enough for me.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,164
If they're being consistent, presumably they would also want to criminalize a woman who has a shower following a rape, before evidence can be collected.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,164
There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape.
Here is one modified from an example in a recent thread:

Suppose I've got a child who will die unless she receives a kidney transplant, and you're the only person I can find who is a match. You refuse, pointing out that you have a right not to be forced to donate your kidney, even to save my child's life. I agree with this, but point out that new technology will allow me to return your kidney to you once my child is healthy enough (a process that will take nine months). Yet still you refuse, again pointing out that you have the right to retain your kidney, even if I only want to borrow it temporarily.

You wake up the next morning to discover that I have drugged you while you slept and removed your kidney against your wishes. You're angry about this, and demand that I be punished for my assault upon you. I'm arrested and sent to prison, but at least my child will live because now that your kidney is inside her, you have no right to demand it back until nine months have elapsed.

Does that account seem correct to you?
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
The argument that the victim of the rape has dominion over her own body is legitimate enough for me.
Cut and Paste facility is the best discovery ever.

Here is an argument against your above belief

You mean that since a child in the womb (who has been objectively verified and publicly proven to have the genome of a human person as soon as it is in zygote stage i.e. a couple of days old and is different from the mother's genome) is depended on the mother; that that somehow gives her the right to end the life of the child.

If this was the case; who else would qualify as a dependent? A person with physical challenges? A one year old? A ten year old? An elderly person? Is the humanity of these people questionable because of their dependence on others?

Your statement would make it a subjective decision whether many human persons would be allowed live or not. In fact, Hitler could have used it as a reason to exterminate some gypsies; who depended on begging from those of the so called purer race for a living.

Your reasoning would go against Universal Principles; in this case The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato and Aristotle). In fact if the objective evidence in relation to the DNA of a zygote and the follow on foetus and baby, that has the genome of a living person outside the womb, was known earlier in the last century; it is inconceivable that the decision in the Roe v. Wade case, which allowed abortions in the USA, would ever have been made in the Supreme Court.

Why the US Supreme Court does not now reverse this decision in the light of scientific research indicates that the morality of the Human Race is breaking down; resulting in the millions of deaths of babies with the real live genome of a person?

In fact your argument can be used to disrespect living Human Beings that are different e.g. colour, race or those people or nations who are up to their necks in Debt and are seen as a burden to the rest of the world.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,847
You mean that since a child in the womb (who has been objectively verified and publicly proven to have the genome of a human person as soon as it is in zygote stage i.e. a couple of days old and is different from the mother's genome) is depended on the mother; that that somehow gives her the right to end the life of the child.
Why is it morally, relevant that it has the genome of a human person? Skin cells have such, white blood cells etc etc. All it is is a code that decides how the person will actually turn out, it doesn't make the holder of that code a person. Personhood may depend on genetics but that does not mean all unique genomes are persons. If it did, then all genetic/epigenetic mutations that occurred in or outside the body due to environmental influences could be considered people, and we know these mutated cells die every day without a single tear being shed.

If this was the case; who else would qualify as a dependent? A person with physical challenges? A one year old? A ten year old? An elderly person? Is the humanity of these people questionable because of their dependence on others?
The difference is between dependent and solely dependent. A person with physical challenges or a one year old isn't dependent on one person to sustain them. This duty can be passed on to others. There could be no justification for ending their lives because their right to life impinged on the rights of one person due to the fact there are other avenues to support them. That is not the case for the fetus. However, were you to create some sort of artificial womb to sustain the fetus outside the mother, technically then you could have an alternative, provided you could produce a method for extracting the living fetus without violating the bodily integrity of the mother.

Of course that is the argument on the basis of the Mother's right to bodily integrity. There is of course the other argument listed above, about whether or not a fetus should be considered a moral entity with rights.
 
Last edited:

Iphonista

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
4,200
I would think it a spurious reason why a lady should carry the child after being raped; even though I agree with the eventual outcome.

There is no real legitimate argument for aborting as a result of rape. Here is an answer to back up this statement that I submitted on another thread.

Abortion should not be permitted in Rape cases.
The reality is that to enforce such a view, you'd need to repeatedly infringe on the rape victim's most basic rights, right to movement and travel being the most obvious one.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Here is one modified from an example in a recent thread:

Suppose I've got a child who will die unless she receives a kidney transplant, and you're the only person I can find who is a match. You refuse, pointing out that you have a right not to be forced to donate your kidney, even to save my child's life. I agree with this, but point out that new technology will allow me to return your kidney to you once my child is healthy enough (a process that will take nine months). Yet still you refuse, again pointing out that you have the right to retain your kidney, even if I only want to borrow it temporarily.

You wake up the next morning to discover that I have drugged you while you slept and removed your kidney against your wishes. You're angry about this, and demand that I be punished for my assault upon you. I'm arrested and sent to prison, but at least my child will live because now that your kidney is inside her, you have no right to demand it back until nine months have elapsed.

Does that account seem correct to you?
I would take stock of the situation and plead that you not be sent to prison. But don't ask me what questions you maybe asked when you get to the Pearly Gates. You maybe giving an open-top bus tour of the Grande Plaza or maybe not!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,631
Cut and Paste facility is the best discovery ever.

Here is an argument against your above belief
Oh dear.

You mean that since a child
That's an odd place to find a "child".
in the womb (who has been objectively verified and publicly proven to have the genome of a human person as soon as it is in zygote stage i.e. a couple of days old and is different from the mother's genome) is depended on the mother; that that somehow gives her the right to end the life of the child.
Stop abusing the language. he ygote is not a "child" and to continue to refer to it so is to attempt to drag emotional consderations into a discussion which has no place for them. All of this "objevtively verified and publicly proven" garbage is also rather overr-eging the mix; we know that the zygote has a genetic blueprint

I guess that you meant to use the word "dependent" rather than "depended". Your use of the word "mother", though is alo emotinal and factually incorrect. he woman in this case is not a mother as a result of this conception. She only becomes a "mother" when birth occurs.

Whatever, the rape victim has the right to shun this dependency which has been forced on her without her consent.
If this was the case; who else would qualify as a dependent? A person with physical challenges? A one year old? A ten year old? An elderly person? Is the humanity of these people questionable because of their dependence on others?
Seem to m that you're appallingly ignorant of human rights and their applicability to humans.
Your statement would make it a subjective decision whether many human persons would be allowed live or not. In fact, Hitler could have used it as a reason to exterminate some gypsies; who depended on begging from those of the so called purer race for a living.
No it couldn't, and to progress from my statement, which was that the rape victim has dominion over her body to killing beggars, errr, beggars belief.

Your reasoning would go against Universal Principles; in this case The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato and Aristotle). In fact if the objective evidence in relation to the DNA of a zygote and the follow on foetus and baby, that has the genome of a living person outside the womb, was known earlier in the last century; it is inconceivable that the decision in the Roe v. Wade case, which allowed abortions in the USA, would ever have been made in the Supreme Court.
Flim-flam and poppycock. Prove in logical terms the first sentence of this piece of word salad.
Why the US Supreme Court does not now reverse this decision in the light of scientific research indicates that the morality of the Human Race is breaking down; resulting in the millions of deaths of babies with the real live genome of a person?
I'm a laughing genome and you can't catch me. You really are dribbling out unconnected scattergun random gibberish.
In fact your argument can be used to disrespect living Human Beings that are different e.g. colour, race or those people or nations who are up to their necks in Debt and are seen as a burden to the rest of the world.
Not in the least. My argument relates purely to the contents of a woman's womb and her right to determine what is allowed there.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,631
Here is one modified from an example in a recent thread:

Suppose I've got a child who will die unless she receives a kidney transplant, and you're the only person I can find who is a match. You refuse, pointing out that you have a right not to be forced to donate your kidney, even to save my child's life. I agree with this, but point out that new technology will allow me to return your kidney to you once my child is healthy enough (a process that will take nine months). Yet still you refuse, again pointing out that you have the right to retain your kidney, even if I only want to borrow it temporarily.

You wake up the next morning to discover that I have drugged you while you slept and removed your kidney against your wishes. You're angry about this, and demand that I be punished for my assault upon you. I'm arrested and sent to prison, but at least my child will live because now that your kidney is inside her, you have no right to demand it back until nine months have elapsed.

Does that account seem correct to you?
If the transplant involved brain material I'd let my child take their own chances in this scenario.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,253
Here is one modified from an example in a recent thread:

Suppose I've got a child who will die unless she receives a kidney transplant, and you're the only person I can find who is a match. You refuse, pointing out that you have a right not to be forced to donate your kidney, even to save my child's life. I agree with this, but point out that new technology will allow me to return your kidney to you once my child is healthy enough (a process that will take nine months). Yet still you refuse, again pointing out that you have the right to retain your kidney, even if I only want to borrow it temporarily.

You wake up the next morning to discover that I have drugged you while you slept and removed your kidney against your wishes. You're angry about this, and demand that I be punished for my assault upon you. I'm arrested and sent to prison, but at least my child will live because now that your kidney is inside her, you have no right to demand it back until nine months have elapsed.

Does that account seem correct to you?
I'm not getting how you relate this to a pregnancy. In the case of say organ failure like renal failure, the option of dialysis is there as is the hope for a transplant for this child. In a pregnancy, the foetus has been conceived in a womans womb, shares the DNA with two people, one being the woman and the foetus has to stay there to continue to birth to survive.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,847
I'm not getting how you relate this to a pregnancy. In the case of say organ failure like renal failure, the option of dialysis is there as is the hope for a transplant for this child. In a pregnancy, the foetus has been conceived in a womans womb, shares the DNA with two people, one being the woman and the foetus has to stay there to continue to birth to survive.
The question is, if when having no other option, is it right to impinge upon the right to bodily integrity of one to save the life of another?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
40,631
The question is, if when having no other option, is it right to impinge upon the right to bodily integrity of one to save the life of another?
THe law most eviently says "no".

Hell, you can't even use the organs of a dead person without permission.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Why is it morally, relevant that it has the genome of a human person? Skin cells have such, white blood cells etc etc. All it is is a code that decides how the person will actually turn out, it doesn't make the holder of that code a person. Personhood may depend on genetics but that does not mean all unique genomes are persons. If it did, then all genetic/epigenetic mutations that occurred in or outside the body due to environmental influences could be considered people, and we know these mutated cells die every day without a single tear being shed.
Alright! Let's see if this can persuade you! It is all ready accepted in the laws of the USA and GB, therefore I expect in Ireland that in inheritance cases there is a definite link between a man coupling with a lady and the eventual arrival of a baby

The difference is between dependent and solely dependent. A person with physical challenges or a one year old isn't dependent on one person to sustain them. This duty can be passed on to others. There could be no justification for ending their lives because their right to life impinged on the rights of one person due to the fact there are other avenues to support them. That is not the case for the fetus. However, were you to create some sort of artificial womb to sustain the fetus outside the mother, technically then you could have an alternative, provided you could produce a method for extracting the living fetus without violating the bodily integrity of the mother.
Not taking responsibility and shoving the problem onto others is symptomatic of our establishment figures. Yes, I understand this modern day argument; but do not agree with it. A woman would not kill her four year old child; so why should see kill a four week old foetus in her womb. Unless like the story of Euripides' Medea when Jason deserts her for the younger, richer princess of Corinth; she takes revenge in the supreme way within her grasp, by killing their sons. However, we now live in a Christian era, where such behaviour would not be tolerated! :confused:

Of course that is the argument on the basis of the Mother's right to bodily integrity. There is of course the other argument listed above, about whether or not a fetus should be considered a moral entity with rights.
I have already shown that a zygote, foetus or baby has acquired rights in law the day after it is conceived

When that baby is born, it only has one father.

He was there at the beginning.

It is his child when it is born.

If society forgot about the development and links that happens between conception and birth.

Any old bastard could claim that they are next in line to the throne of England.

But today such a claim can be refuted by a DNA test.

The baby has the dad's genes.

That Dad is unique to that child and is by nature is in a very privileged position.

The zygote/foetus/baby has these genes and is developing at each stage that it is being carried by the mother.

At nine months, it does not need to be inside the mother to survive.

But it possibly will need nurture from its parents until well into its twenties.

It’s in a development process and has rights from conception to getting that degree!

The rights it has are not primarily of a religious nature, but ones of raw human nature.

Human Reason is dormant; humanity is failing if we cannot order our life process without resorting to quenching it at some stage.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,304
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
Oh dear.

That's an odd place to find a "child".Stop abusing the language. he ygote is not a "child" and to continue to refer to it so is to attempt to drag emotional consderations into a discussion which has no place for them. All of this "objevtively verified and publicly proven" garbage is also rather overr-eging the mix; we know that the zygote has a genetic blueprint

I guess that you meant to use the word "dependent" rather than "depended". Your use of the word "mother", though is alo emotinal and factually incorrect. he woman in this case is not a mother as a result of this conception. She only becomes a "mother" when birth occurs.

Whatever, the rape victim has the right to shun this dependency which has been forced on her without her consent.Seem to m that you're appallingly ignorant of human rights and their applicability to humans.No it couldn't, and to progress from my statement, which was that the rape victim has dominion over her body to killing beggars, errr, beggars belief.

Flim-flam and poppycock. Prove in logical terms the first sentence of this piece of word salad.I'm a laughing genome and you can't catch me. You really are dribbling out unconnected scattergun random gibberish.

Not in the least. My argument relates purely to the contents of a woman's womb and her right to determine what is allowed there.
Rubbish!
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top