(no subject)
Oct. 27th, 2004 10:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baoSo, I was lurking on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
religiousdebate, and came across this lovely soundbite:
D)Are you suggesting that abortion decreases children born of incest?
Yes. A fetus made through incest should be aborted, always.
And I have to admit, even though I am extremely pro-choice, this made me stop and go "WHUT." But commenting there would more or less necro the over-2-weeks-old post, which is entirely stupid. So you get this instead!
Let's presume, hypothetically, in some version of this world where such a thing would be possible, that a girl gets pregnant due to incest and wants to give birth to the child. Not necessarily keep it, just give birth and put it up for adoption. Is this arguing that regardless of her wishes it should be forcibly aborted anyway? Or is it arguing that the issue of incest somehow trumps all other related factors, such as trauma from rape or the health of the pregnant woman?
Basically, the statement translates to me as "It's a child concieved from extremely deviant sexual behavior! KILL IT!", which seems to completely and utterly defeat the point of letting the woman choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Forcing a woman to have an abortion is equal, in my mind, to forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to.
You'll notice I don't use the term "fetus". That's because it doesn't apply to the first trimester, when it's technically still an embryo, and also, I consider it a child from the point of conception onward. Which has absolutely no effect on my support of abortion, by the way.
If I was to explain the logic behind most of my views on ethics and morality, I think it would make most people's heads implode.
religiousdebate, and came across this lovely soundbite:D)Are you suggesting that abortion decreases children born of incest?
Yes. A fetus made through incest should be aborted, always.
And I have to admit, even though I am extremely pro-choice, this made me stop and go "WHUT." But commenting there would more or less necro the over-2-weeks-old post, which is entirely stupid. So you get this instead!
Let's presume, hypothetically, in some version of this world where such a thing would be possible, that a girl gets pregnant due to incest and wants to give birth to the child. Not necessarily keep it, just give birth and put it up for adoption. Is this arguing that regardless of her wishes it should be forcibly aborted anyway? Or is it arguing that the issue of incest somehow trumps all other related factors, such as trauma from rape or the health of the pregnant woman?
Basically, the statement translates to me as "It's a child concieved from extremely deviant sexual behavior! KILL IT!", which seems to completely and utterly defeat the point of letting the woman choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Forcing a woman to have an abortion is equal, in my mind, to forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to.
You'll notice I don't use the term "fetus". That's because it doesn't apply to the first trimester, when it's technically still an embryo, and also, I consider it a child from the point of conception onward. Which has absolutely no effect on my support of abortion, by the way.
If I was to explain the logic behind most of my views on ethics and morality, I think it would make most people's heads implode.
