Abortion: Why so serious?

[Boingo]

Let's say we live in a place where the law states that the only cases in which abortion is legal are when the mother's life is in danger and/or rape. Rape is the only important one for this, so ignore the first exception. I think the main reason for people thinking it is "ok" to have an abortion as a product of rape is that it is an unwanted pregnancy and a financial burden the mother/husband (if she's married) had not planned on. So how is this any different from a situation in which a couple's birth control fails? It is also an unplanned financial burden and unwanted pregnancy. Really the only difference is the emotional trauma of being raped. But emotional trauma isn't reason enough to kill someone. If it were, pretty much every murder would be legal. So the emotional factor isn't something that should be considered as part of the reasoning behind the law. So, should it then be legal to have an abortion when contraception fails because it is an unwanted pregnancy like with rape, or should it be illegal to have an abortion when it is a product of rape because it is illegal in the case of contraception failure?

**Looks like bojengles ninja'ed me on a couple of points, but I'll post anyway.**

You could take the reverse tact and say that since we don't allow elective abortion in the case of failed contraception, and this is a case of unwanted pregnancy just as with rape, we shouldn't allow abortion for cases of rape either. (I'm not advocating that position, just pointing out a shortcoming of advocating for a position by drawing similarities in dissimilar cases.)

But really you have presented a false dichotomy--there are more choices than take unwanted child to term and support him/her financially vs abort unwanted child.  What about taking child to term and giving him/her up for adoption? 

In the case of failed contraception (BTW, only abstinence is 100% guaranteed, even with married couples!) who's paying the biggest price?  The parents who will have to bear the bigger cost of an unplanned pregnancy or the child who forfeits his life?  And how many of your friends, family members or colleagues were really truly "planned for" anyway?

[Demagog]

The point is that both cases are the same in that the pregnancy was not something desired. Aborting a "rape baby" is like saying, "Oh! Something bad happened to me so now I think I'll kill whatever reminds me of it." What gives a pregnant woman the right to do this when it is illegal for a wife to kill her husband and his mistress when she discovers they have been having an affair? The emotional issues are the same, and they are both taking care of it the same way: killing what reminds them of their emotional trauma. Another example would be if the pregnant woman hunts down the guy who raped her and kills him. That's just in case you say that the two prior examples are "unrelated."

And plenty of people would love to have that child. It wouldn't be that difficult for the mother to act as a surrogate. She would have all of her financial needs that involve the unborn child taken care of. I'm not sure what there is more of though, people looking for surrogates or women pregnant by rape.

[Boingo]

How much is too much a financial burden these days?  Is it 10,000 dollars (or Euros or whatever....) or 100 or 1?

[bojengles77]

I just don't see the parallel between killing an unborn fetus and killing a human being with a life, i.e. a husband or mistress - the comparison just isn't even vaguely there for me. Maybe i'm heartless, but i see a difference between killing my wife and taking an amorphous blob without sensory awareness out of a womb to avoid bringing it into an unfortunate childhood.

[assassim]

uhhh don't any of you Christians consider that the fact that over population might be a slight problem? Who gives a **** about fetuses, only useful for stem cell research. What's with you religious types and holding back the world? Just do us ALL  a favor and go back to the dark ages that you burdened us with.

[Boingo]

uhhh don't any of you Christians consider that the fact that over population might be a slight problem? Who gives a **** about fetuses, only useful for stem cell research. What's with you religious types and holding back the world? Just do us ALL  a favor and go back to the dark ages that you burdened us with.

Which country are you in that has this overpopulation problem?    Canada?  LOL

[bojengles77]

Ok , everyone just calm down. no need to make fun of peoples' religion for no apparent reason.

[Jaxly]

uhhh don't any of you Christians consider that the fact that over population might be a slight problem? Who gives a **** about fetuses, only useful for stem cell research. What's with you religious types and holding back the world? Just do us ALL  a favor and go back to the dark ages that you burdened us with.

Which country are you in that has this overpopulation problem?    Canada?  LOL

Ha ha. Brilliant response 

, i personally dont think its rational to compare the "life" of a 5-month-old fetus to that of a 45 year old man with a wife, two kids, and family and friends who know and love him  - this is just my view.

You're right, it is nearly impossible to make this comparison. The man has developed higher emotions and bonds where the fetus has but instincts. In terms of "value" the man is worth more. A terrible thing to say but true none the less.

The point is that both cases are the same in that the pregnancy was not something desired. Aborting a "rape baby" is like saying, "Oh! Something bad happened to me so now I think I'll kill whatever reminds me of it." What gives a pregnant woman the right to do this when it is illegal for a wife to kill her husband and his mistress when she discovers they have been having an affair? The emotional issues are the same, and they are both taking care of it the same way: killing what reminds them of their emotional trauma. Another example would be if the pregnant woman hunts down the guy who raped her and kills him. That's just in case you say that the two prior examples are "unrelated."

And plenty of people would love to have that child. It wouldn't be that difficult for the mother to act as a surrogate. She would have all of her financial needs that involve the unborn child taken care of. I'm not sure what there is more of though, people looking for surrogates or women pregnant by rape.

I seriously think that you're underestimating the emotional trauma that could come from such an experience.
Rape victims often do not tell anyone what happened to them. Many would reason that when it became obvious that they were pregnant friends and family would notice or even congratulate them. They could be afraid of being treated differently if people knew. When rape happens to a person it is not just the victims themselves who bear the burden, but their family and friends too. The victim may think that the best way to spare herself and her family further trauma would be to never tell a soul. That necessitates abortion.
I'm not sure what the law is in other countries, but a woman killing her rapist would not be tried as a murderer but as a less serious manslaughter case.

[Demagog]

My underestimation is probably due to my lack of empathy. Oh well.

Anyway, I'm anti-death, so I feel it is wrong to kill any person, born or unborn. The only reason that it's "ok" to kill a person, again, born or unborn, is if they are threatening the lives of others. The unborn child of a rape victim usually isn't life threatening, so it's immoral in my eyes. Of course, I don't expect people to share my beliefs, and I wouldn't force those beliefs onto others. It saddens me though that people don't seem to value life as much as I do, whether it be their own or another's.

[Jaxly]

Just to clarify, I wasn't attacking your personality. I'm pro life but I don't think an early abortion (first 6-7 weeks) is as bad as one halfway through term.
The unborn child of a rape-victim may not be life threatening but it can certainly be life wrecking. I'm just trying to say that moral issues can become blurred for those affected by such terrible things.

[Boingo]

Just to clarify, I wasn't attacking your personality. I'm pro life but I don't think an early abortion (first 6-7 weeks) is as bad as one halfway through term.
The unborn child of a rape-victim may not be life threatening but it can certainly be life wrecking. I'm just trying to say that moral issues can become blurred for those affected by such terrible things.

I can understand your sentiment, but to be honest, Demagog has a much more cohesive stance.  Your position is unenviable as it forces you to defend some arbitrary number of weeks (why not 5 weeks or 8 weeks?) when the act of elective abortion supposedly goes from something ordinary to something to be condemned.  Demagog simply has to assert the unborn is alive and thus should be treated with the respect we afford every other human life.  Food for thought anyway.

I appreciate all the (serious) contributions to the thread so far!

[CB!]

Let me just throw this out there.  I've seen a special on TV (can't remember what it was called) that told the stories of young girls that honestly didn't know they were pregnant until they gave birth.  Don't ask me how that's possible, but apparently it can happen.

So let's say that a 15 year old girl became pregnant and would have had an abortion had she realized she was pregnant.  For those that defend such abortions, would it be OK for her to "abort" the birth of her new baby by leaving the child in a dumpster or burying him/her in the back yard or what not? and if not, why not?