Are Unborn Children Human?

[TigerTime]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I suggest that MEN take responsibility for not causing unwanted pregnancies.
There are various well-known ways to NOT CAUSE an unwanted pregnancy.
Communicate with the women FIRST and if she doesn’t want to have a baby, don’t cause a pregnancy.

[/quote]

Yes,yes. we can all agree stopping a problem before it arises is the best method, but that isn’t always feasible (rape, contraception failures, etc.).

That’s why we’re debating on the best way to go about solving the problem after the fact.

[TigerTime]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Your stance is defending the choice to murder a child. According to the choice you argue for. In my mind, all LIFE should be defended. I do NOT know all details of every situation and I sure don’t know the outcome of every life.
[/quote]

I agree. We don’t know what’s best for everyone. That’s why it should be the mother’s choice. Saying we don’t know what’s best for everyone, therefore we should force everyone to respond to this situation the same is not consistent.

Pregnancies which are aborted, would normally result in a human life. Hell even the children who are aborted and still live after abortion, they are left on a table to die.

The potential for human life is irrelevant. Every sperm cell you wasted today could have been a human. Every menstruated egg could have been a human.

I think you have your facts mixed up. No abortionist leaves an extracted fetus on a table to die on its own.

And in response to your defence on egoism; forcing your preferences on another for personal gain would be greed. You want to force your preferences on everyone because you think you are right and everyone against you is wrong. This is egotistical.

How does death benefit the unborn child? I can give you numerous examples of people who were adopted and later created awesome lives for themselves. My Grandfather being one. How does one person being torn apart, literally limb form limb, benefit another human? Seriously, how?

Line by line:

• Irrelevant. The benefit of the fetus is a secondary issue at best.
• Irrelevant. The exception does not prove the rule, nor do the lives of non-aborted persons have an effect on whether or not the mother should have a choice in the matter
• Irrelevant. The child feels nothing.
• Aborting the child benefits the mother, who no longer has to carry or raise the child

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

That’s not even twenty years ago. And all he could say was “more than a hypothesis”.

In an op-ed in the New York Times he (Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna) said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

That was 2005.

Can we not pretend the Catholic Church has been a bastion of tolerance and forward thinking, when that is clearly not the case?

Okay, sidetrack over.[/quote]

From wikipedia:

Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, the Church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, which had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[6] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[7] The early Church Fathers taught creationismâ??though there was debate being over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[10] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.

This is damning why?

Darwin published his book in 1859, just about 150 years ago. The book, at the time, was a massive, revolutionary paradigm shift for the entire world. It’s not like he published Origin of the Species and the entire planet went, “Oh, okay, guess we’d better get to changing those textbooks.”

Plus, what was suggested was that “A Catholic who believes in evolution is rare (perhaps even a contradiction of terms.” Which I showed to be clear, unadulterated, ignorant bullshit. How much of what else TT asserts as true should be viewed through this filter.

The annoying thing is that not once, not one time, have I argued in this thread from a Catholic or religious viewpoint. I have consistently confined mine to arguments from Natural Law. While I’m being accused of creating “straw men” by T2 over here, this entire side track is just a bullshit red herring that was thrown out because the core of what he was implying could not be denied: That he supports killing innocent humans in certain situations. As soon as he could not weasel out of the truth of that statement, he started flinging out all sorts of attacks at my Catholicism and trying to twist the situation to make it seem as if I was the one employing logical fallacies. Demanding that I answer questions that have nothing to do with that point as I presented it. Saying I was twisting his words and attacking straw men when clearly this is exactly what he has been doing to me.

Mother’s “choice” be damned. The organism is a human. From the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, it is a unique, individual human containing its own individual set of DNA. THIS is science. Bleating “mother’s choice” over and over does not change the simple fact that it is its own unique new human life, and the argument is that mothers should be able to murder it. Therefore my point stands, he’s saying that in certain situations it is perfectly okay to kill an innocent human.

[Cortes]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

That’s not even twenty years ago. And all he could say was “more than a hypothesis”.

In an op-ed in the New York Times he (Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna) said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

That was 2005.

Can we not pretend the Catholic Church has been a bastion of tolerance and forward thinking, when that is clearly not the case?

Okay, sidetrack over.[/quote]

The way Cortes plays it off, you’d think was natural to associate Catholicism with evolutionary theory. Assuming he does accept the science of it 100%, there’s a sea of issues that arises. Like, for example, how the two are only “kinda sorta” compatible since the Catholic church declared that a literal translation of Genesis wasn’t “mandatory”. In other words, the two are “compatible” to the extent that you can mentally twist the words of genesis into something “like” evolution.
[/quote]

I do not accept the science of evolution 100%. You do? The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example among many many many unanswered questions that creates a “sea of issues” with evolution.

[quote]
It’s also curious as to why God gave his followers Genesis knowing that we would take it literally, but hey I guess I’m just too young to understand the mystical complexity of God’s twisted intentions… [/quote]

They were pre-historic goat herders, not mental giants like yourself, dude. The story was not a scientific treatise on the origin of man, it was a creation story. It was meant to convey a lesson. What is so hard about this?

Since you insist upon trying to needle me and throwing this argument as far off the track as you can manage to keep us from dwelling upon the inconvenient truth of the conclusion your line of thinking leads us to, I guess it’s up to me to bring us back on track yet again:

You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?

[KneeDragger_79]

So we don’t know, but you want the mother to have the final choice.

[quote]TigerTime wrote: I agree. We don’t know what’s best for everyone.[/quote] Why should a mother’s choice supersede the child she helped to create? [quote]TigerTime wrote: That’s why it should be the mother’s choice. Saying we don’t know what’s best for everyone, therefore we should force everyone to respond to this situation the same is not consistent. [/quote] Simple rebuttal. Why?

[quote]TigerTime wrote: The potential for human life is irrelevant.[/quote] That is the crux of your argument. There is no ‘potential’ by the way, IT IS A HUMAN LIFE! Prove otherwise, using universally accepted science. [quote]TigerTime wrote: Every sperm cell you wasted today could have been a human. Every menstruated egg could have been a human.[/quote] Show me this to be the case when they are separate. Together, in the right environment is when another human life that is created. In addition, big difference between could and WOULD.

[quote]TigerTime wrote: I think you have your facts mixed up. No abortionist leaves an extracted fetus on a table to die on its own.[/quote] Really?
This is from the UK - 66 babies in a year left to die after NHS abortions that go wrong | Daily Mail Online
and in Italy - http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36333
and here in the US - Abortion Survivors
and - http://www.humanrightsforunbornchildren.com/truth/05.html
and - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hughes/061018 do I need to continue?
Please try and defend your case with information that is commonly available on the internet. Just be smart about what you read. This might prove to be difficult for you.

[quote]TigerTime wrote: And in response to your defence on egoism; forcing your preferences on another for personal gain would be greed.[/quote] So this doesn’t apply to me. Glad we cleared that up. [quote]TigerTime wrote: You want to force your preferences on everyone because you think you are right and everyone against you is wrong. This is egotistical.[/quote] If it were solely I to have this view. However simple high school biology shows the life is another human from the moment of conception. Read the previous posts and look for the acronym SLED.

[quote]TigerTime wrote: Line by line:

• Irrelevant. The benefit of the fetus is a secondary issue at best.[/quote] The fetus is of primary concern.

[quote]- Irrelevant. The exception does not prove the rule, nor do the lives of non-aborted persons have an effect on whether or not the mother should have a choice in the matter[/quote] Says who, other than you? Who asked the child?

[quote]- Irrelevant. The child feels nothing.[/quote] Did you watch the video I linked to? Tell me a fetus being aborted feels nothing after watching the link. You can NOT tell me the fetus feels nothing!!

[quote]- Aborting the child benefits the mother, who no longer has to carry or raise the child[/quote] So the mother should get a free pass if the child is a result of a night out on the town or a ‘change your mind eight months later’? Realize, actions often result in other things and often people are being effected. Why does the mother get the final say in killing a child, which took TWO to create?

[KneeDragger_79]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?
[/quote]

I can answer for him ; ) YES TT believes exactly this!

[Makavali]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?[/quote]

Oh good lord, are you really doing this? I thought you were better than this.

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?[/quote]

Oh good lord, are you really doing this? I thought you were better than this.[/quote]

Show me how it is not true, then. Should be simple, if it is so obvious.

[Makavali]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?[/quote]

Oh good lord, are you really doing this? I thought you were better than this.[/quote]

Show me how it is not true, then. Should be simple, if it is so obvious.[/quote]

I thought you were better than asking an emotionally charged question, there is no way of answering that question when you ask it like that without you responding in a way that reads similar to:

“So you’re okay with murder!!one1!”

So let’s make this very clear.

1. There are consequences. Have you ever talked to a female who has just had one? It’s not a matter of going through the drive-thru and ordering a diet abortion with fries. There are ramifications. And let’s stop pretending that we’re arguing for convenience, I would be very surprised to see anyone on this board looking to make abortion into a form of birth control.

2. Whether or not you can call a mass of cells with no consciousness an individual is still in doubt. No matter how much you plead for it to be otherwise, it is in question. A potential individual is still not an individual.

So ask your question again, but taking into account the above.

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?[/quote]

Oh good lord, are you really doing this? I thought you were better than this.[/quote]

Show me how it is not true, then. Should be simple, if it is so obvious.[/quote]

I thought you were better than asking an emotionally charged question, there is no way of answering that question when you ask it like that without you responding in a way that reads similar to:

“So you’re okay with murder!!one1!”

So let’s make this very clear.

1. There are consequences. Have you ever talked to a female who has just had one? It’s not a matter of going through the drive-thru and ordering a diet abortion with fries. There are ramifications. And let’s stop pretending that we’re arguing for convenience, I would be very surprised to see anyone on this board looking to make abortion into a form of birth control.

2. Whether or not you can call a mass of cells with no consciousness an individual is still in doubt. No matter how much you plead for it to be otherwise, it is in question. A potential individual is still not an individual.

So ask your question again, but taking into account the above.[/quote]

You need to go about 5 pages back and start reading. I did not start my argument in this manner. The argument logically led to this point.

The question is not emotionally charged, either. It is statement of facts. Those facts being:

1. The organism is human.
2. It is an individual human distinct from its mother.
3. Abortion necessarily results in its death.

All of the above was agreed to. My question contains nothing more than the above. Dehumanizing it by calling it a “mass of cells” does not change the fact that it is, despite all protestations, an individual human organism which, if we don’t rip it limb from limb with a hoover, will continue to develop into a child which will be born and cute and people will be a lot more squeamish about tearing to pieces.

Now that last bit might have contained a bit of an appeal to emotion, but it, too, is true

[TigerTime]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

That’s not even twenty years ago. And all he could say was “more than a hypothesis”.

In an op-ed in the New York Times he (Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna) said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

That was 2005.

Can we not pretend the Catholic Church has been a bastion of tolerance and forward thinking, when that is clearly not the case?

Okay, sidetrack over.[/quote]

The way Cortes plays it off, you’d think was natural to associate Catholicism with evolutionary theory. Assuming he does accept the science of it 100%, there’s a sea of issues that arises. Like, for example, how the two are only “kinda sorta” compatible since the Catholic church declared that a literal translation of Genesis wasn’t “mandatory”. In other words, the two are “compatible” to the extent that you can mentally twist the words of genesis into something “like” evolution.
[/quote]

I do not accept the science of evolution 100%. You do? The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example among many many many unanswered questions that creates a “sea of issues” with evolution.

It’s also curious as to why God gave his followers Genesis knowing that we would take it literally, but hey I guess I’m just too young to understand the mystical complexity of God’s twisted intentions… [/quote]

They were pre-historic goat herders, not mental giants like yourself, dude. The story was not a scientific treatise on the origin of man, it was a creation story. It was meant to convey a lesson. What is so hard about this?

Since you insist upon trying to needle me and throwing this argument as far off the track as you can manage to keep us from dwelling upon the inconvenient truth of the conclusion your line of thinking leads us to, I guess it’s up to me to bring us back on track yet again:

You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?

Yes, I know we don’t agree on this. I’m going to stop here before this thread gets completely derailed.

Never mind I finished your post and you intend the same, so, allrighty then.

You believe in original sin, yes? Then the life isn’t innocent according to you.

My answer is yes. Perhaps not how I would word it, but I don’t think you’re going for a semantics war, so I’ll say yes.

[TigerTime]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?[/quote]

Oh good lord, are you really doing this? I thought you were better than this.[/quote]

Show me how it is not true, then. Should be simple, if it is so obvious.[/quote]

I thought you were better than asking an emotionally charged question, there is no way of answering that question when you ask it like that without you responding in a way that reads similar to:

“So you’re okay with murder!!one1!”

So let’s make this very clear.

1. There are consequences. Have you ever talked to a female who has just had one? It’s not a matter of going through the drive-thru and ordering a diet abortion with fries. There are ramifications. And let’s stop pretending that we’re arguing for convenience, I would be very surprised to see anyone on this board looking to make abortion into a form of birth control.

2. Whether or not you can call a mass of cells with no consciousness an individual is still in doubt. No matter how much you plead for it to be otherwise, it is in question. A potential individual is still not an individual.

So ask your question again, but taking into account the above.[/quote]

You need to go about 5 pages back and start reading. I did not start my argument in this manner. The argument logically led to this point.

The question is not emotionally charged, either. It is statement of facts. Those facts being:

1. The organism is human.
2. It is an individual human distinct from its mother.
3. Abortion necessarily results in its death.

All of the above was agreed to. My question contains nothing more than the above. Dehumanizing it by calling it a “mass of cells” does not change the fact that it is, despite all protestations, an individual human organism which, if we don’t rip it limb from limb with a hoover, will continue to develop into a child which will be born and cute and people will be a lot more squeamish about tearing to pieces.

Now that last bit might have contained a bit of an appeal to emotion, but it, too, is true
[/quote]

Well, number 2 is debatable. It has it’s own dna code, but literally speaking it is not an individual as it is still physically attached to the mother.

An individual is a person or any specific object or thing in a collection. Individuality (or selfhood) is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires.

• Wikipedia

I would not say it is an individual.

[TigerTime]

Before I continue, if this debate continues to split into so many issues I’m just going to stop. I don’t have the time nor the desire to go through all of this.

Pick your core issues and focus on them. Please and thank you.

[quote] kneedragger79 wrote:
So we don’t know, but you want the mother to have the final choice. [/quote]

I think that’s much more reasonable than, say, YOU having the final choice for everyone.

Why should a mother’s choice supersede the child she helped to create?

Is this not the exact same line of reasoning Christians use to justify God’s rampant murdering in the bible? I see a double standard here.

For the record, how the two parties got into their circumstance is irrelevant.

Simple rebuttal. Why?

Different situations require different approaches.

That is the crux of your argument. There is no ‘potential’ by the way, IT IS A HUMAN LIFE! Prove otherwise, using universally accepted science.

Uh, no. No it is not the “crux” of my argument.

In this sense I was using the word “human” to mean a human individual.

Show me this to be the case when they are separate. Together, in the right environment is when another human life that is created. In addition, big difference between could and WOULD.

There is a difference between “could” and “would”, but it’s irrelevant as it can be said of both that that the potential for a human individual is there assuming the correct circumstances.

[quote]Really?
This is from the UK - 66 babies in a year left to die after NHS abortions that go wrong | Daily Mail Online
and in Italy - http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36333
and here in the US - Abortion Survivors
and - http://www.humanrightsforunbornchildren.com/truth/05.html
and - Throw-away babies do I need to continue?
Please try and defend your case with information that is commonly available on the internet. Just be smart about what you read. This might prove to be difficult for you. [/quote]

Wow. Very, VERY biased sources. And it looks like only the first two are relevant. Even then, they’re all about abortions that went wrong. By your own sources admission, an abortion is not performed in such a way that this is the result. These are exceptions where something has gone wrong.

[quote]
So this doesn’t apply to me. Glad we cleared that up. [/quote]

… you knew exactly what I was getting at. It’s in the very next sentence. Why you felt the need to split these two and respond to them individually is beyond me.

If it were solely I to have this view. However simple high school biology shows the life is another human from the moment of conception. Read the previous posts and look for the acronym SLED.

… what the hell does that have to do with what I wrote???

The fetus is of primary concern.

… not what I was arguing against, but whatever.

Says who, other than you? Who asked the child?

Says logic. Also, the child is non-cognitive. He can’t be asked anything.

[quote] Did you watch the video I linked to? Tell me a fetus being aborted feels nothing after watching the link. You can NOT tell me the fetus feels nothing!!

• Aborting the child benefits the mother, who no longer has to carry or raise the child So the mother should get a free pass if the child is a result of a night out on the town or a ‘change your mind eight months later’? Realize, actions often result in other things and often people are being effected. Why does the mother get the final say in killing a child, which took TWO to create?[/quote]

These last two arguments have been dealt with already with other people in this thread.

Look, I’m going to be honest. I don’t think you quite fit in with the debating scene here. I get that you’re pro-life, but your pro-life premise and conclusions don’t follow. Both in an obvious and subtle sense. It’s batently clear that you are arguing from emotion, not logic, and that even if I showed you to be completely wrong you would not change your mind.

[Cortes]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
You support the individual right of one to kill without consequence another innocent individual human in certain situations. Yes or no?
[/quote]

Yes, I know we don’t agree on this. I’m going to stop here before this thread gets completely derailed.

Never mind I finished your post and you intend the same, so, allrighty then.

You believe in original sin, yes? Then the life isn’t innocent according to you.

My answer is yes. Perhaps not how I would word it, but I don’t think you’re going for a semantics war, so I’ll say yes. [/quote]

Cool. At least you have the balls to admit it. I respect that, believe it or not.

I think it is a very dangerous, morally reprehensible way of thinking, but I respect you for at least being honest.

As far as where baby’s souls go, they go to Heaven, the Catholic Church has an explanation for that and it can be found in that link I gave you earlier, if you are interested.

Short answer: They go to heaven. Just like murdered 2 year olds, whose murder I also do not condone.

[system]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I suggest that MEN take responsibility for not causing unwanted pregnancies.
There are various well-known ways to NOT CAUSE an unwanted pregnancy.
Communicate with the women FIRST and if she doesn’t want to have a baby, don’t cause a pregnancy.

[/quote]

Yes,yes. we can all agree stopping a problem before it arises is the best method, but that isn’t always feasible (rape, contraception failures, etc.).

That’s why we’re debating on the best way to go about solving the problem after the fact.[/quote]

Just wondering…what percentage of unwanted pregnancies are the result of contraception failures and rape? Any eggheads out there know the answer?

[kamui]

source Wikipedia :

[quote]Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

[/quote]

so yes, it IS a form of birth control.

[system]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I suggest that MEN take responsibility for not causing unwanted pregnancies.
There are various well-known ways to NOT CAUSE an unwanted pregnancy.
Communicate with the women FIRST and if she doesn’t want to have a baby, don’t cause a pregnancy.

[/quote]

Yes,yes. we can all agree stopping a problem before it arises is the best method, but that isn’t always feasible (rape, contraception failures, etc.).

That’s why we’re debating on the best way to go about solving the problem after the fact.[/quote]

The problem is not gonna get solved ‘after the fact’.
That’s a ‘leading from behind’ mentality that is destined to failure.
It must be solved by not causing unwanted pregnancies.
I maintain that it needs to be a cultural shift, maybe a peer-pressure issue, for guys not to cause unwanted preganancies. Men need to take more responsibility for it – they figure the consequences are a bit removed so they don’t worry about it so much.

[system]

[quote]kamui wrote:
source Wikipedia :

[quote]Reasons for abortions

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

[/quote]

so yes, it IS a form of birth control.[/quote]

Yup. The guy is not taking enough responsibility for not causing unwanted pregnancies.
I agree it should not be used as birth control.

As for the other categories (7%) for health reasons and/or rape – the woman’s entitled to a choice. I mean come on!

[kamui]

[quote]
As for the other categories (7%) for health reasons and/or rape – the woman’s entitled to a choice. I mean come on![/quote]

“health reasons” is a bit vague. Abortion to save the mother’s life is one thing. Abortion because the child will be somewhat disabled is another thing entirely.

Rape could not be an exception to a legal ban of abortion.
if you don’t verify the claims of rape, anyone can abort at anytime. It would make the ban useless.
If you try to verify the claims of rape, women who have actually been raped but are unable to prove it before the birth of the child would have their “abortion right” denied.
ie : It would not be enforceable in practice.

this “you can abort only if…” way has already been tried. In the 60’s. It didn’t work, and it directly led to Roe vs Wade.

[Cortes]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
As for the other categories (7%) for health reasons and/or rape – the woman’s entitled to a choice. I mean come on![/quote]

“health reasons” is a bit vague. Abortion to save the mother’s life is one thing. Abortion because the child will be somewhat disabled is another thing entirely.

Rape could not be an exception to a legal ban of abortion.
if you don’t verify the claims of rape, anyone can abort at anytime. It would make the ban useless.
If you try to verify the claims of rape, women who have actually been raped but are unable to prove it before the birth of the child would have their “abortion right” denied.
ie : It would not be enforceable in practice.

this “you can abort only if…” way has already been tried. In the 60’s. It didn’t work, and it directly led to Roe vs Wade.[/quote]

There’s also the law of unintended consequences that will almost certainly come into play here. How many men will be falsely accused of rape as a “solution” to the woman’s pregnancy as a result of this, if there were to be a ban with a clause for rape?