re: Abortion hypothetical

quote:

---

Abortion hypothetical:

A healthy woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend.
At 9 months, all indications are that it is a healthy baby.
The woman decides that being a mother would cramp her style.
Are you O.K. with her demanding the baby be killed?

---

Of course not, who would? Seriously, who would? Unless you have some super liberal boogeyman dreamed up in your head.

quote:

---

Abortion is Legal.

---

Slavery was legal til it wasn't....

Is your concern directed at pro-life people?

I think there is a large portion of pro-life people that are against abortion except in certain circumstances such as the one you just described.

In your hypothetical, the young girl wasn't part of the choice that resulted in becoming pregnant.

I am anti-abortion, but am accepting of situations like that where it makes sense to a degree.

I think most reasonable people are of the same mindset. The problem we have is that most people try to frame abortion as a personal choice for the woman. That's their go to argument, yet ignores that in 95% of the cases, it was also her choice to have unprotected sex and get knocked up.

quote:

---

Your comparison of the two scenarios is flawed logic.

---

No, it isn't. For my point, it's perfect. I wouldn't have used it otherwise.

quote:

---

Of course not, who would? Seriously, who would? Unless you have some super liberal boogeyman dreamed up in your head.

---

'K...how about 8 months? Is that in the ballpark of what is acceptable to you?

quote:

---

Good catch! Anecdotes are always a convenient argument until it's an anecdote that doesn't fit the narrative lol.

---

Soooo...your anecdotes are totes o.k. or nah??

quote:

---

Should she be expected to carry that baby for 9 months, with all of the potential complications, all the while knowing that she's about to give birth to an inbred child with an undetermined number of fingers and toes?

---

Deconstructing all the wrong from your hypothetical would take some time.

You know that the number of fingers and toes are way, way down the list of concern for genetic health? Hemolytic anemia, congenital heart disease, hemophilia - just to name a few problems limited to the cardiovascular and circulatory system off the top of my head - are significant risks with inbreeding.

On the other hand, all humans are inbred to a degree - at one point there was a collapse of the human population to approximately 2000 couples extant. Prior to the industrial revoluation, the vast majority of human beings never traveled more than 30 miles from where they were born in an entire lifetime. With population densities being what they were until very recently - you do the math. Finally, even in the United States, there was no significant legislation or prohibition on cousin marriage until after the Civil War. Many of our modern taboos about "too close" of a genetic relationship among parents of a child are a combination of cultural "ickyness" (for lack of a better term) and, somewhat more ironically, ideas that arose out of the modern eugenics movement that was embraced by such esteemed folks as Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler.

It should also be noted that much of European nobility and royalty suffered from inbreeding for centuries, peaking during the Victorian period.

You must know that some form of your hypothetical has been used to justify tens of millions of abortions that have been procured solely for convenience/upon the whim of the mother.

The whole incest/rape/very underage (you've managed to capture all three with a single hypo) is a fraction of a percent of women who ultimately procure an abortion.



How would someone on your side feel if a person was so inclined to craft a very specific, narrow hypo about a white collar crime, say an accountant embezzled from dozens of orphanages that resulted in children starving to death or dying due to lack of health care to then justify making such crimes a capital offense?

That would be off-putting, would it not?

Having said all of that, I hold no political objection to abortion. "Abort 'em if you got 'em."

Just don't pretend that the vast, vast majority of abortions are done purely at the whim of/for the convenience of the mother(ETA: oops, Freudian slip there, for sure) and every successful one (regardless of motivation) ends a human life. Because all of that is true.

quote:

---

Hypothetically again, is there a chance that you'd feel differently if it was your daughter?

---

Laws aren't created to address anecdotes.

quote:

---

Thats not at all what I'm saying. (and the op has it at 9 years old.)

---

Where?

quote:

---

A 10- or 11-year-old girl is raped and impregnated by a male relative. Should she be expected to carry that baby for 9 months, with all of the potential complications, all the while knowing that she's about to give birth to an inbred child with an undetermined number of fingers and toes?

---

quote:

---

I'm pointing out that a 9 year old getting pregnant via rape, is a lot less common than late term abortion. That is the question I asked about. One happens frequently and the other may be a rare anomaly...again..don't you agree?

---

Do you have data to support your claims?

I'd say both are a rarity, but wouldn't guess as to which is more rare or by how much without seeing those data.