“But, do the men have the right to force a woman to go through gestation, and then suffer delivery agony/risks if the child is the product of rape? I am here assuming the rape victim does not want to carry and deliver the child.”
You assume a lot. A rape victim need not channel her anger towards the child. The child is an innocent party in this and does not deserve to be murdered. A rape victim should be counselled and supported, not encourage to murder.
Taking an innocent life is simply not an option. That is the principle of my argument.
“Please consider the contradiction between your “innocent child” which should be “innocent fetus”, and the Christian concept of “Original Sin”.”
All children are innocent. There is no one more innocent than an unborn child. Anything else, including the argument for abortion because of “original sin”, is bulls##t.
“Original Sin would not allow the fetus to be free of sin, or are you postulating that Original Sin is contracted during passage down the birth canal?”
Original Sin is a religious concept for those who subscribe. My argument is based on the right of an innocent human to life and nobody has the right to take that away, not even the mother-to-be and definitely not based on religious concepts.
” My argument is based on the right of an innocent human to life and nobody has the right to take that away, not even the mother-to-be...”
Possibly of interest to you may be the fact that the question of “To whom does the child belong?” has always been considered to correctly be answered by “The child belongs to the parents.” Then communism/Liberalism/statism changed the answer to “The State owns the child.”
This began in Florida when a child was forced to have a medical procedure the parents resisted because of religious beliefs. The State argued that the “Rights of the Child” trumped the age old “The parents decide because the child is theirs as long as it is a child.” Note that a common subtrefuge used by commies and their UN pawns is the UN “Rights of the Child” manifesto”.
Allow me to state a few medically well known fact, that rape results in pregnancy in only a few cases due to the extreme emotional trauma of the violent rape, and than allow me to suggest that you consider the fact that society has many years and much effort/resources invested in an more or less adult female capable of reproduction.
To value this adult female less than the fetus started within her body by a violent rape, is not a position which I can support. The adult female of reproductive age has always been protected by civilized men because since the dawn of human awareness it has been obvious that such females were what the very survival of mankind depended upon.
I am unable to find your argument sufficient to justify forcing more trauma upon an already traumatized female.
Also, I do not find the birthing of genetically deficient babies to be a good thing. Incest was banned for valid genetic reasons. Those who support violating the most basic of genetic truths of human reproduction pay a high price. Muslims are a case in point. 1,400 years of incest results in an amazing array of genetic diseases, as the Saudi Royal Family demonstrated.
I hope the above may help your understanding of the reasons most of America supports aborting rape or incest fetuses.
Lastly, I do not support recreational abortion, as allowing that degrades the female to a mere semen sump as the “Sexual Revolution” demonstrated. However, rape is not recreational sex, despite all that Bill Clinton got away with. And, incest does pose unavoidable genetic damage issues.
Another question is raised by your “Taking an innocent life is simply not an option.” Taking that as an absolute is what lawyers and philosophers call “Legal Perfectionism”, the idea that a law can be written so wisely that it can be applied to all, in all situations, and result in justice.
As the Greeks knew, society was then too large and too complex for such a law to be possible. They accepted Legal Perfectionism as a goal but realized it was impossible to be attained because they had societies of 40,000 voters and the possibilities of conflict were too great for any one law. They thus decided to rely on judgement instead of “One size fits all” laws.
Absolute abortion bans are an excellent case of the inadequacies of any absolute law.
I do prefer the diffused, non-centralized decision making process over centralized, absolutist decision making. Therefore, I support allowing a mother to have available the option of abortion in cases of violent rape and incest.
Thanks for your exchange of ideas on these questions. You have helped me review ideas I have not needed to make decisions on for years.