• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why incest

roguenuke said:
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
Click to expand...

I believe the reason for "making incest an exception" is an emotional reaction, rooted in the fact the practice confuses familial lines, which other "birth defect" situations do not involve.
 
Court Jester said:
Who says I am a conservative Christian? Abortion is genocide because it is the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings. Has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Can I assume that you are saying genocide is bad and that abortion, being genocide, is also bad?

If I am correct, then you would make no exceptions for rape or incest, correct?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Can I assume that you are saying genocide is bad and that abortion, being genocide, is also bad?

If I am correct, then you would make no exceptions for rape or incest, correct?
Click to expand...

That is correct. It a logical fallacy to say abortions kill an innocent human being and then allow for the same innocent human being to be killed due to the circumstances of the conception which that innocent human being had nothing to do with.
 
Court Jester said:
That is correct. It a logical fallacy to say abortions kill an innocent human being and then allow for the same innocent human being to be killed due to the circumstances of the conception which that innocent human being had nothing to do with.
Click to expand...

Who says abortions kill '"innocent" human beings besides you? Or some other pro-life people? What makes them 'innocent?'

You've never managed to explain why you value the unborn's 'innocence?' The unborn cannot act or even form intent...why value that? It's an 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum, with no individual volition possible. It's the same 'innocence' of a flower or a couch.

Why do you value that "nothingness"? Why do you value it over the lives of women?


Court Jester said:
Who says I am a conservative Christian? Abortion is genocide because it is the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings. Has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Too bad that's not the definition of genocide.

Genocide is the organized killing of a demographic (group) by people of another demographic (group) of people.

--The unborn arent people
--there's no organized campaign to kill the unborn
--it's an individual decision by women across all demographics (not organized by a single demographic)
--abortion crosses all demographics/groups.​

And of course, you should stop pretending that abortion is genocide, since you have been corrected.
 
Lursa said:
Who says abortions kill '"innocent" human beings besides you? Or some other pro-life people? What makes them 'innocent?'

You've never managed to explain why you value the unborn's 'innocence?' The unborn cannot act or even form intent...why value that? It's an 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum, with no individual volition possible. It's the same 'innocence' of a flower or a couch.

Why do you value that "nothingness"? Why do you value it over the lives of women?




Too bad that's not the definition of genocide.

Genocide is the organized killing of a demographic (group) by people of another demographic (group) of people.

--The unborn arent people
--there's no organized campaign to kill the unborn
--it's an individual decision by women across all demographics (not organized by a single demographic)
--abortion crosses all demographics/groups.​

And of course, you should stop pretending that abortion is genocide, since you have been corrected.
Click to expand...

You need to come up with some better talking points Lursa. We have already covered all of these.

If that is how you wrap your mind around the justification for killing these babies then you keep on telling yourself this is "nothingness":

650x350_fetal_development_slideshow.jpg
 
Court Jester said:
You need to come up with some better talking points Lursa. We have already covered all of these.

If that is how you wrap your mind around the justification for killing these babies then you keep on telling yourself this is "nothingness":
Click to expand...

You cannot articulate and defend your own claims: valuing an "innocence" of emptiness, you cannot use words correctly, and you resort to an attempt at emotional manipulations....and that's how you participate in a discussion?

No, that's how you avoid actual discussion and admitting you cannot support your position with more than your feelings and falsehoods.

Anytime you do want to try and address the tough questions on a tough issue, let me know, they arent going anywhere:

Who says abortions kill '"innocent" human beings besides you? Or some other pro-life people? What makes them 'innocent?'

You've never managed to explain why you value the unborn's 'innocence?' The unborn cannot act or even form intent...why value that? It's an 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum, with no individual volition possible. It's the same 'innocence' of a flower or a couch.

Why do you value that "nothingness"? Why do you value it over the lives of women?​

and

Too bad that's not the definition of genocide.

Genocide is the organized killing of a demographic (group) by people of another demographic (group) of people.

--The unborn arent people
--there's no organized campaign to kill the unborn
--it's an individual decision by women across all demographics (not organized by a single demographic)
--abortion crosses all demographics/groups.

And of course, you should stop pretending that abortion is genocide, since you have been corrected.​
 
Court Jester said:
You need to come up with some better talking points Lursa. We have already covered all of these.

If that is how you wrap your mind around the justification for killing these babies then you keep on telling yourself this is "nothingness":
Click to expand...

Lursa is right. Zefs are not human beings. And pictures don't sway me.
 
Court Jester said:
That is correct. It a logical fallacy to say abortions kill an innocent human being and then allow for the same innocent human being to be killed due to the circumstances of the conception which that innocent human being had nothing to do with.
Click to expand...

While disagree with your position on the morality of abortion, I respect your consistency. If I were pro-life, I would not allow exceptions for rape or incest, either. Innocent is innocent. Pro-lifers who allow exceptions for rape or incest are inconsistent and hypocritical.

"Abortion is murder and morally wrong! Unless the abortion is because the innocent baby was conceived from rape or incest. In that case, it is acceptable to kill the innocent baby." SMH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom