sculptor,
You might as well hand yourself in to the police for the last time you wanked into you sock.
When I start squirtin' out zygotes, I might just do that.
mind your own business.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 am
What exactly have I done to assert a right to tell folks what they can and can't do beyond my talkin' about natural rights? And what power have I exercised to get folks to recognize natural rights beyond debate and conversation?
As I say: I'm no judge or legislator. I have no granted or privileged say over any one. All I
can do is exercise the power I have over myself.
The absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.
So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no
inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.
if you are somehow considering the interests of the foetus you are asserting a double standard.
I consider the interests of both woman and child. Each belong to themselves, equally, and they do so in a unique circumstance, a singular human relationship.
Consider these outlandish scenarios...
1 Your best friend is dyin' and you agree to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, your friend will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily
drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.
2 Someone is dyin' and you agree, for a small but satisfyin' fee, to be surgically bound to him for 9 months as part of a life-savin' treatment (your organs will supplement his). At the end of 9 months, the person will be cured of what was killin' him and you'll be temporarily
drained but, overall, no worse for wear. Midway thru, you begin to have second thoughts.
3 You awake to find you've been surgically bound to a stranger, without your permission. A doctor explains this stranger's life is utterly dependent on yours for 9 months. If disconnected early, the stranger will die. The stranger, by the way, is unconscious, and had no say in the surgical binding either. You are outraged at the violation of your life and body.
4 A twist on # 1: midway thru the 9 months, it's discovered, unexpectedly, your heart is overstrained. It's likely your friend will fully recover as expected, but you will die from a failure of your over-worked heart. However, if you are disconnected
now you will recover but your friend, bein' severed from you, will die.
What is your proper course of action in these scenarios? Disconnect or remain connected?
The "murderess" will simply claim rape.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:04 am
By the time the abortion is needed any evidence is gone.
If the woman is examined and evidence is collected at the time it generally is --
shortly after the rape -- it is preserved and
certified by the attending. This certification is good for real world criminal proceedings if the rapist is caught tomorrow or two years later, and in the hypothetical world I'm touchin' on, where morality is treated as real instead of a relative fiction (note the thread title) this same certification could stand if the woman decided to abort at the first sign of pregnancy or waited till the six month.
And no "rape kit" can prove a rape. It can prove sex nothing more.
it can prove there was violent penetration. Along with other injuries, this lends weight to her claim. Sure she could lie. She can lie
now (how many men have been falsely convicted, Mr. Stats?). Again, we're talkin' about morality in the thread, not forensics.
If rape is the only excuse for an abortion then the question is "PROVE IT".
It's not the only just cause for an abortion (did you
read my post, or just
scan it?). And, yeah, the bar is set low, way lower than if she were tryin' to get a man convicted. Again: we're talkin' about morality in the most delicate of circumstances. Unlike the courtroom a certain trust is applied here that the woman is honest, that her claim is true. But, hey, you wanna set the bar higher, make it more difficult for the raped to abort (cuz mebbe some women will game the system), fine by me.
in certain states rapes victims are now being forced to carry a bastard monster inside themselves
And they shouldn't be. It's immoral. I've offered a low bar means to correct that consistent with a moral realism.
