Abortion: The Necessity for Victims of Rape and Incest

[the number 42]

Hi Bart. I don't blame you for not getting why rape is so devastating, as in a way it shouldn't be that bad. I mean, bad things happen, and we deal with it, right? I think the key might be that we have way more deep feelings and attitudes about sex than we do about other things e.g. I bet you think about sex way more than you think about your legs (get professional help if this is not the case ). So when you combine this whole maze of thoughts and feelings with the impact of a violent attack, you can expect there to be consequences on many levels e.g. social (stigma of rape), relational (will boyfriend/family understand?), personal (loss of sense of control over life), psychological (post-traumatic stress disorder, sex with boyfriend triggers rape memories), legal (forensic examination, testifying) etc. This is ignoring AIDS (or worry about AIDS) and pregnancy issues. So really there is a lot of stuff there. I'd agree that people can & do get over rape, but if you think about it there is a lot of reasons why getting over it shouldn't be an easy thing. I think your question is valid though, and I'd like to hear other people's opinions on why rape is so difficult to deal with.

 

[plus]

I would rather loose my legs, that is, if I were a woman. Please don't come to conclusions of just cause I'm a man I can't possibally know what it feals like. One can be happy without legs, but the sychological trauma of being raped, and even bearing a child out of it, that damge is permanent and eriplasable.

Men can and do get raped also. This is a terrible problem in prison, something which people even make jokes about.

 

[GeD]

Originally Posted by AiA
One can be happy without legs, but the sychological trauma of being raped, and even bearing a child out of it, that damge is permanent and eriplasable.

Wow, I'm sure that rape victims who have fought their way through their misfortune will thank you for trivializing their struggle.

 

[Averagesupernova]

The problem with the abortion issue is that it is a physical act. I do truly believe that at and shortly after fertilization occurs the so-called baby is a parasite. One poster claimed that destroying it is destroying the chance of a future life. They compared it to killing someone who is 40 and destroying their chance of life after retirement. Well let me take this a step farther. A man and woman are in a room. They both have the equipment to create a life. Yet they do not. Same result as abortion (no baby) yet there was not a physical act. The egg goes to waste, the sperm die and are replaced with more. By not having sex they have destroyed the chance of a future life. From a preservation of life standpoint is this any less immoral than doing the deed and 1) fertilization not ocurring, 2) fertilization ocurring and destroying it within a short time? If we are going to argue about 'life' then we need to see it from all sides. The way I see it getting pregnant through rape and choosing adoption over abortion is simply the victims way out of a bad situation. They can say they did not destroy a life and at the same time not have the responsibility of raising a child.

 

[GeD]

1st Part - In response to Bartholomew's posts:
For once, I agree with bartholomew.

If I can walk away from rape physically intact and without disease, the mental trauma of being raped is something I can overcome. I cannot regrow another leg. Of course we don't want to be raped, but it would only be considered "the most evil" if you chose to believe that. Betrayal and abuse are heartbreaking, but it only breaks a man if the man chooses to be broken - or believes that being raped is about being broken. The problem is that people fear rape so much, that they call it their absolute enemy - that it's the end of the world. Rape survivors are a testament to the fact that it is not.

By pitying the rape victims, all you do is trivialize their struggle. Helping them out, observing their will to recovery and the great POWER they must have - is at least useful to us.

2nd Part - In response to Abortion:
Simply pro-life is again assuming that LIFE ITSELF has a right to live, simply by virtue of the fact they are alive. Yet we are so willing to kill plants, viruses and bacteria, simply because we need to do so, to survive and be healthy. We are also not so willing to enforce a law of NOT wasting sperm and eggs because it would hinder our freedom too much, even though it involves the slaughtering of countless life forms, albeit not technically a potential human yet. Given these observations, we cannot argue that JUST because or ONLY because the fetus is alive, it has a right to live. The reason we would want to keep fetuses alive must lie under different reason(s) as well.

A more advanced Pro-Life argument may want to further the point that when the "potential to being a human" is ascertained, people want to keep fetuses alive - they are our future children after all. They are our legacy, they are our tickets to immortality. Indeed, this would be an understandable argument, if we believe in such ideas. But even then, we are forced to answer a tough question:
Is there something that FORCES us to save fetuses, other than reasons we have chosen ourselves? (even though most of these reasons have been indoctrinations)

 

[Philocrat]

Since you post this question in the Value subsection of the Philosophy section, the question you should ask yourself now is: HOW WOULD PHILOSOPHERS RESPOND TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS THREAD? So far people are responding as if they are on a Day Time TV Talkshow. Maybe you should ask for this thread to be moved to the general discussion section. I think with this level of response justice would be better served there.

 

[GeD]

Since you post this question in the Value subsection of the Philosophy section, the question you should ask yourself now is: HOW WOULD PHILOSOPHERS RESPOND TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS THREAD? So far people are responding as if they are on a Day Time TV Talkshow. Maybe you should ask for this thread to be moved to the general discussion section. I think with this level of response justice would be better served there.

The more pertinent question is why you think that appealing to authority is important for these discussions. The people here may not be formally trained philosophers (or haven't even taken any philosophy), but the ideas posted by some in here are what philosophers have been thinking about, or encounter in the field.

If someone is posting Daytime TV talkshow arguments, they are easily destroyed by counterarguments made by the "knowledgeable philosophers" here.

 

[mapper]

this is how freddy kruger was made/born. Nothing good can come outta this.

 

[Bartholomew]

Philocrat, I don't see your problem. What reasoning do you object to? This thread is mostly about establishing values by comparison--do you object to this kind of argument? In value theory it is often necessary to ask for and share opinions. Not all philosophy takes the form of sterile and lofty ideals, and nor should it.