Abortion Rights and Fetal Homicide: Contradiction? In MY Law? Page 3

Started by FreakyLocz14 October 24th, 2010 9:33 PM
  • 2701 views
  • 77 replies

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


Yes, it does. Incest increases the risk for genetic disorders being present in the incestuous relationships' children. Look at the case of Patrick and Susan Stübing for one example, siblings who lived totally seperate lives, then met and got married, and had 4 children. All of those children were born with severe developmental disorders, two have Autism and they all have varying levels of mental retardation as a result. Incest increases the risk for genetic problems, that's a fact.


And the laws governing abortion are far from "extremist pro choice" Note the limitations placed on abortions after a certain Trimester is over/starting. The law allows for abortions, yet limits them at the same time, and that's why Roe V. Wade has stood for 30+ years.
Abortions restrictions vary by state. There are some states that place all the restrictions they can get away with on abortion, such as limiting it to the first trimester, requiring physicians to inform women of alternatives, waiting periods, parental notification laws, not allowing for public subsidization of elective abortions, etc. And there are some states that allow an underage girl to have a late-term abortion on the taxpayer's dollar with no questions asked.

I believe that those restrictions are a good compromise. They allow for adult woman to have abortions as long as she does so before the fetus reaches the point where it might have a chance of be viable outside of the womb, they educate woman on their alternative options before they make such a big decision, and they don't use public funds to assist woman in having an elective abortions so the government isn't sponsoring the abortion. They also have laws in place to protect underage girls.

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
I believe that those restrictions are a good compromise. They allow for adult woman to have abortions as long as she does so before the fetus reaches the point where it might have a chance of be viable outside of the womb, they educate woman on their alternative options before they make such a big decision, and they don't use public funds to assist woman in having an elective abortions so the government isn't sponsoring the abortion. They also have laws in place to protect underage girls.
I'll agree to that up there. ^ As long as the process remains available, by law, to people who generally need it is what matters. The way Roe V. Wade is set up, I don't think any amount of bickering or political dealing will over turn it.
Age 29
Female
Outta the kitchen.
Seen December 28th, 2010
Posted December 23rd, 2010
2,216 posts
12.9 Years
Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.
No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:
Flame me but I don't see any problems with incest at all. They just need to know what they're getting into. What's so different than a brother and sister having sex than a husband and wife? I don't see much difference.
Well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits. Sure the risks of birth defects are higher, but that doesn't make incest suddenly a crime. If both of them are adults, consenting and WANT that kind of a relationship despite the risks, then they ought to be expected to be mature enough to handle the consequences if something goes wrong.

That being said...consensual sex between a brother and sister does not imply that they WANT a child...sex is a form of expressing love. If proper contraceptive tactics are used, the chances of pregnancy are vastly reduced.
Why do you assume they WANT a baby?
You just go and assume sex > baby. You do know people have sex for the fun of it?
I'm getting offtopic, but if you go and rant "genetics omg" and "baby" then you make your posts seem.. I have no idea.

As for the second part.. you know so much and rant about genetics and babies that you completely forgot there's protection for that kind of thing.

Oh and FreakyLocz.. what is so good about restrictions?
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:
I think Amai was responding to the part of Pachy's post when she said "well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits", not the part about incest couples not having to have children. As for who's correct, I don't do biology so I wouldn't have a clue.

I would agree to a different title. 25 years to life is the max penalty in my state for non capital crimes. Both death and life without the possibilty of parile are considered capital punishment here. If a crime isn't classified as murder, than capital punishment is off limits. If it is murder, than abortion doesn't make sense because consent is not a valid defense to murder. See the legal inconsitency?
We wouldn't be charging the criminal with murder of the fetus, we'd be charging him with infringement of the mother's right to have a baby, however the forced abortion of the fetus would be used as an incentive to give the harsher penalty (death penalty) to the criminal for the murder of the mother.

Or were you talking about the current laws being inconsistent? Sorry if I replied to this if you were just talking about what the laws are currently.
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
So than why do we care what murderers do? What they do doesn't effect me directly? Scott Peterson acted against my morals when he killed his wife and his unborn child. Should I view what he did for the moral relativism point-of-view? Maybe murder is acceptable in his culture, so who am I to say he was wrong?

I'm all for Libertarianism, but I use the harm principle to determine where I draw the line. Since I believe that a fetus is a human being, abortion is murder in my view.

That being said, exceptions for the life of the mother and rape, and parental notification laws for underage abortion seekers are reasonable concessions to the pro-choice crowd from us pro-lifers.
I doubt I'm helping my case when I say that I believe the only thing close to an absolute moral is murder. I agree with you on the harm thing... as long as what you do doesn't bring harm to another life, I'm all for it. But...

It all truly does boil down to the notion of "is a fetus a life?". I think we all can agree that the answer is: "I don't know". A fetus, while inside of the mother, fits the definition of a parasite perfectly. However, at the same time, after birth, it's still a bit of a parasite, because it wouldn't really survive without the mother. It's a sticky subject, and I won't deny that.

But, in a slight altercation of your words, I'll say that I do not believe a fetus is a life, therefor abortion is in no way murder.

This also gets into the idea of "is human life more important than other life?" For example, every time you wash your hands, you're killing bacteria. Why are there no laws against that? Theoretically, by Darwinism, any single-cell organism has the ability to evolve into a higher organism, so why isn't it considered murder?
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958

Amai

やった! 私はあまい

Age 30
Male
東京
Seen November 13th, 2020
Posted December 13th, 2010
137 posts
12.6 Years


No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:


Why do you assume they WANT a baby?
You just go and assume sex > baby. You do know people have sex for the fun of it?
I'm getting offtopic, but if you go and rant "genetics omg" and "baby" then you make your posts seem.. I have no idea.

As for the second part.. you know so much and rant about genetics and babies that you completely forgot there's protection for that kind of thing.

Oh and FreakyLocz.. what is so good about restrictions?
Like someone above said, I was replying to "well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits". But good try.
My Shiny Pokemon
Recent Shiny
Munna
36 eggs hatched
Day 1

Currently Hunting
Tsutarja
600 eggs hatched
Day 8
Chobomaki
30 eggs hatched
Day 1

Stellar

Minior used Cosmic Power!

Age 31
Female
outer space.
Seen December 7th, 2022
Posted November 27th, 2022
870 posts
14.1 Years
I believe the fine line between fetal homicide and abortion rests entirely upon the mother's wishes. A violent father shouldn't be able to take away a mother's right to give birth to their child in the same way that the country shouldn't be able to take away a woman's right to choose. To take the life of an unborn child from a mother who is clearly ready for children is murder in my eyes, if not of the fetus then of the mother's very heart and soul. But if a woman is raped and the pregnancy is forced upon them, who is to say that they are powerless to move on rather than subject themselves (and the child) to living that kind of life? Would you really call someone in that situation a murderer?

It's the woman's body and it's her choice, that's what it all comes down to. I feel as though many pro-lifers tend to see the issue in black and white and don't take into account the helpless women who are caught in the grey area. It isn't as simple as saying that all forms of abortion are equal to murder because you affect countless lives by making that assumption, some of them in very negative ways.

However, I do appreciate the point you're making. I've never seen this particular issue brought to light before, but then again I don't talk about the subject much. I have many close friends who are pro-lifers and I'd rather respect their opinion and keep to my own than start a possible fight.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.
Sorry to be contrary, but that's entirely untrue. Putting aside the straw man you created, there is no statistically significant evidence presented in any properly conducted studies (key word is properly, the oft-cited one from a few decades ago has been proven to be poorly conducted) to suggest that children of incest have any more genetic mutations than other children.

And I also think you don't understand how genetics works. Nearly every person on the face of the planet has some bit of mutation; it's a natural part of the genetic process, and it's what the theory of evolution is based on. Every new generation has a little more variation because of some differences in the genetic code of the new generation. Sometimes these are harmful, and when this happens those with the harmful defects generally don't live to pass on those genes. It's kind of like trial and error on a planetary scale. However, sometimes such mutations are helpful. The sickle-cell gene became so prevalent because, though it produced other large problems, it provided a resistance to malaria, a highly common disease in the area of Africa it was most common in. Still, the vast majority of genetic mutation doesn't produce any discernible differences. Much of the genetic code is stuff that's never even used, so the mutated genes don't really do much; other times, the change is slight or something that is already common.

On a genetic level, though, there's no reason why incest would produce any different results genetically speaking than any other combination. In fact, incest is quite common in animal populations; if it was something that harmful to the offspring, it would have died off long ago.

Again, though, it's not something I support; merely something I tolerate. I think it's best to try to think about things from an objective standpoint even if I personally find such things absolutely disgusting.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I believe the fine line between fetal homicide and abortion rests entirely upon the mother's wishes. A violent father shouldn't be able to take away a mother's right to give birth to their child in the same way that the country shouldn't be able to take away a woman's right to choose. To take the life of an unborn child from a mother who is clearly ready for children is murder in my eyes, if not of the fetus then of the mother's very heart and soul. But if a woman is raped and the pregnancy is forced upon them, who is to say that they are powerless to move on rather than subject themselves (and the child) to living that kind of life? Would you really call someone in that situation a murderer?

It's the woman's body and it's her choice, that's what it all comes down to. I feel as though many pro-lifers tend to see the issue in black and white and don't take into account the helpless women who are caught in the grey area. It isn't as simple as saying that all forms of abortion are equal to murder because you affect countless lives by making that assumption, some of them in very negative ways.

However, I do appreciate the point you're making. I've never seen this particular issue brought to light before, but then again I don't talk about the subject much. I have many close friends who are pro-lifers and I'd rather respect their opinion and keep to my own than start a possible fight.
Saying that it's the woman's body; so it's her choice, just shows me how selfish the pro-choice crowd is. They completely ignore that fact that there is another person with its own body involved.

That being said. Just sticking strictly to legal inconsistency between the two laws: consent is not a valid defense to homicide, and neither is inability nor unwillingness to care for one's child. The inconsistency stems from the common law definition of homicide, which 49 states in the U.S. and federal government follow: "Homicide is the unlawful killing a human being." Thus, the term "fetal homicide" is pretty much accepting that a fetus is a human being.

I agreed earlier that classifying fetal homicide as some sort of crime would be acceptable from a legal standpoint. It could still carry some pretty harsh penalties like 25 to life or 50 to life. In my state, the only sentences that are off limits to non-murder offenses are death and life without the possibility of parole.
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
That being said. Just sticking strictly to legal inconsistency between the two laws: consent is not a valid defense to homicide, and neither is inability nor unwillingness to care for one's child. The inconsistency stems from the common law definition of marriage, which 49 states in the U.S. and federal government follow: "Homicide is the unlawful killing a human being." Thus, the term "fetal homicide" is pretty much accepting that a fetus is a human being.
I wouldn't be a fan of a fetal homicide law. Instead, we could charge the criminal with the infringement of the mother's right to have a baby and give it a penalty that reflects the views of the community (ie. a decent sentence). It doesn't state that the fetus is a human being, getting rid of the legal inconsistency, and in the end it has a similar outcome to if we did have a fetal homicide law. The death sentence/capital punishment would not be appropriate for this crime in my opinion (so the fetus does not have to be considered as life).

Relating to what you said before about somebody who murdered a pregnant woman - the facts that the woman is carrying a child makes her less able to defend herself as well as forcing an abortion, both things which can act as incentive to give the criminal the death penalty for the murder of the mother as opposed to giving the criminal a less harsh penalty.

Unrelated to the topic at hand but just to clarify, I wouldn't support an abortion past the 20 week stage; if you've left it that late you should have to go through with having the child, and if needed just put it up for adoption. You've got five months to make the decision for an abortion (probably around four of being aware of being pregnant) which is more than adequate time to get an abortion. I support legalising abortion because as well as giving the woman the choice to abort, it puts in place balances and checks to make sure the women know what they're doing and to stop dangerous home abortions (for example, using a coathanger :S) from happening. Abortion will still be happening whether it's legalised or not, and I'd rather women can get an abortion from a qualified professional instead of an amateur or even themselves.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I wouldn't be a fan of a fetal homicide law. Instead, we could charge the criminal with the infringement of the mother's right to have a baby and give it a penalty that reflects the views of the community (ie. a decent sentence). It doesn't state that the fetus is a human being, getting rid of the legal inconsistency, and in the end it has a similar outcome to if we did have a fetal homicide law. The death sentence/capital punishment would not be appropriate for this crime in my opinion (so the fetus does not have to be considered as life).

Relating to what you said before about somebody who murdered a pregnant woman - the facts that the woman is carrying a child makes her less able to defend herself as well as forcing an abortion, both things which can act as incentive to give the criminal the death penalty for the murder of the mother as opposed to giving the criminal a less harsh penalty.

Unrelated to the topic at hand but just to clarify, I wouldn't support an abortion past the 20 week stage; if you've left it that late you should have to go through with having the child, and if needed just put it up for adoption. You've got five months to make the decision for an abortion (probably around four of being aware of being pregnant) which is more than adequate time to get an abortion. I support legalising abortion because as well as giving the woman the choice to abort, it puts in place balances and checks to make sure the women know what they're doing and to stop dangerous home abortions (for example, using a coathanger :S) from happening. Abortion will still be happening whether it's legalised or not, and I'd rather women can get an abortion from a qualified professional instead of an amateur or even themselves.
Yes. The forced abortion could be charged in addition to the homicide. The criminal would be convicted of two crimes. The prosecutor could also be able to use the forced abortion conviction as an aggravating circumstance when asking the jury to impose the death penalty. Just the forced abortion itself would not warrant capital punishment.
Age 34
Female
Australia
Seen December 29th, 2011
Posted November 3rd, 2010
352 posts
12.9 Years
Wow... I am kind of disgusted at the 'Pro incest' in this thread... lets hope you guys don't have siblings and breed with them...

Anyway, the law is ridiculous, you either allow abortions or you call it murder... why not get rid of one law before making the other one.

Also I am pro Abortion IF you've been raped or your child will be born with disabilities.

I am anti abortion if you've had a child because you were stupid and didn't wear protection.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Wow... I am kind of disgusted at the 'Pro incest' in this thread...
I'm not sure anyone here is "pro-incest," possibly because I don't know what you mean by that. Those who spoke up were simply being tolerant of a lifestyle choice.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me
Seen January 4th, 2013
Posted October 21st, 2011
1,804 posts
13.8 Years
I am anti abortion if you've had a child because you were stupid and didn't wear protection.
those who become pregnant due to irresponsibility probably aren't fit to take on the responsibilities of raising a child, and im not sure i like the idea of a child being raised by anyone so careless and neglectful. the way i see it, the embryo doesn't even have a central nervous system let alone a will to live, and keeping the option unavailable to all is like trapping a woman in her own body. until the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the mothers womb, i don't consider abortion the killing of a human being...and until it's actually born i don't feel anyone has the right to tell a woman what she ought to do with her parasitic offspring.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
While I agree that Murder A =/= Murder B, don't forget that you can factor out the Murder and reach the conclusion that Murder(A=/=B). The Murder is the same, but circumstance may be different. Murder is Murder, whether it be your neighbor or the man who tried to rob your house and didn't realize you have a gun. There is still a life being taken; you of all people I'd expect to agree with that.
I don't see why all murders should be treated as if they're the same based on this, like the original poster was implying. He very clearly disagreed that situation and context played a part in how wrong a murder was.

And there's that "moral" debate again. I'm a moral relativist, have been for a long time. Cultures differ (and most of 'em, including our own, are down right weird), but it's, err, ignorant? to force morals where they are not wanted.
Well I don't know about that. I mean, what exactly is being ignored there? It seems more like a legitimate reaction to me. Perhaps that was the wrong word.

Need I remind you that there is a big difference between abortion being legal than illegal? When it's legal, it gives you the choice, and some people (pro-lifers) may opt out of it, and their own morals will remain unscathed, while when it's illegal, the morals are being forced. No one seems to understand this... people act as if when it's legal, everyone MUST have an abortion.
When everyone around someone is doing something they consider horribly evil, it upsets them. In fact, it would be ignorant for us not to be upset when other people violate our morals on right and wrong. In this case, I question whether society can possibly function if we start ignoring right and wrong. I'm pretty sure law itself is based on morals. Just imagine for a moment if we were cannibals. How different the law could have wound up.


I dunno about that... ever been to Alabama? :P
Pfffbt


Why do you care so much about what others do? Whenever an abortion occurs, do you get tingly around the ears? How does a woman having an abortion affect your life in such a way that you demand stricter limits on it? Because they're acting against your morals? That's not much of a reason, if you ask me.
Violating my definition of right and wrong? Seems like a valid reason to care to me. It's sort of murder as far as I'm personally concerned. So yeah. See, what amazes me is that despite the fact it was previously an accepted fact that a baby is created at conception, people walk in with no evidence and somehow manage to win a debate with nothing but reason and brute force. That to me is wrong, especially considering if we're wrong, you can say hello to the single biggest death toll of any event ever.




Ignorance?

Murder is Murder. Are the circumstances different? Yes. Its a convicted criminal and a mass of not fully formed bodily tissues that eventually will become a baby. But the end result is the same. Killing is killing, no matter what the moral justification (or lack therof) is. Logically, one cannot be pro-Death Penalty and pro-life. Note the paradox.

I am Pro-Choice. What a woman does concerning her body and with her life is none of my business, and it would be ill-advised to force my personal beliefs concering abortion on her. I'm not fuly aware of her situation, I don't know her or what it's like to be in her situation. I may not like abortion, but the service needs to be available to the people who need it.

And Roe V. Wade is the way the law should be. And the law will most likely stay that way.
You lack evidence or reason. Do you realize that if you're wrong you are responsible for the biggest death toll of any particular event ever? All because you want to walk around running your mouth about a baby being a mass of tissues against all reason and logic? This to me seems like a perfectly legitimate reason to lose faith in humanity.

Reality check. Just because you heard someone say it, doesn't mean they're right. They had no proof, you have no proof. The fact you're willing to ignore this is basically "why we can't have nice things".



Yes, it does. Incest increases the risk for genetic disorders being present in the incestuous relationships' children. Look at the case of Patrick and Susan Stübing for one example, siblings who lived totally seperate lives, then met and got married, and had 4 children. All of those children were born with severe developmental disorders, two have Autism and they all have varying levels of mental retardation as a result. Incest increases the risk for genetic problems, that's a fact.


Well excuse me, Doctor.

correlation =/= causation.

The above is quite possibly luck and not evidence at all.

And the laws governing abortion are far from "extremist pro choice" Note the limitations placed on abortions after a certain Trimester is over/starting. The law allows for abortions, yet limits them at the same time, and that's why Roe V. Wade has stood for 30+ years.
They're still way too pro choice.


Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.
Ironic. You say he doesn't know anything about genetics but then go off on a nonsense rant about the family relation mattering. That's a moral perspective, not a scientific perspective. See, in reality it's a genetic thing and is not caused by the actual relation. Two completely "unrelated" people can have conflicting Genes that make them a very bad couple, genetically.

Furthermore, scientific study shows that being related has caused, at max, a 2% higher chance of having a "non perfect" child.

That's hardly significant enough to be used as evidence in saying that one causes the other.

A fetus, while inside of the mother, fits the definition of a parasite perfectly. However, at the same time, after birth, it's still a bit of a parasite
It actually doesn't. There are huge holes and flaws that make such a statement a fallacy. Here, let me list some.

1) A parasite is alive. To call it a parasite one must acknowledge a fetus is a living thing. Which only supports the flaw that a parasite must be of a different species than it's host by definition. Either way you look at it, this is a flaw.

2) Just because one organism is dependent on another does not make it a parasitic. To be parasitic, it would have to be metabolically dependent on the host. Believe it or not, Fetuses are metabolically independent.

3) Parasites are specifically invading organisms. They come to a host from an outside source. Babies obviously do not.

4) Parasites are defined as generally being harmful. Babies are not necessarily harmful.

5) Parasites are known to cause the body to react defensively. This is not the case with babies, which are deliberately grown by the body to be immune to such things.

6) Parasites are known to remain with their hosts as long as they live when possible.

"A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species."

So really that's a misnomer, and one that quite honestly upsets/offends me to be honest. Given, I am forced to take this entire topic with a mountain-load of salt.

On a separate note, perhaps we could both agree that it is incredibly important that we get an answer to whether a fetus is life? My issue is that we changed the laws before we knew.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends

Yuoaman

I don't know who I am either.

Age 30
Male
Ontario, Canada
Seen January 28th, 2023
Posted December 12th, 2018
4,582 posts
17.8 Years
So than why do we care what murderers do? What they do doesn't effect me directly? Scott Peterson acted against my morals when he killed his wife and his unborn child. Should I view what he did for the moral relativism point-of-view? Maybe murder is acceptable in his culture, so who am I to say he was wrong?

I'm all for Libertarianism, but I use the harm principle to determine where I draw the line. Since I believe that a fetus is a human being, abortion is murder in my view.

That being said, exceptions for the life of the mother and rape, and parental notification laws for underage abortion seekers are reasonable concessions to the pro-choice crowd from us pro-lifers.
But a murderer can affect you directly. Someone who has affected something in the world can do so again. Just because the first murder had nothing to do with you doesn't mean possible future ones won't.

Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.
...You haven't taken many biology classes I take it? The royal families of Europe have been breeding almost exclusively with each other for centuries and have only recently been 'expanding'. In all this time there were very few horrible mutations - excepting hemophilia of course.

It has everything to do with the traits carried by the parents and the mutations that could result. Just because they have similar chromosomes doesn't necessarily mean they'll match up in a harmful way.

Think about it, the entire species descends from a handful of individuals. And even as recently as 70,000 years ago the Toba supereruption reduced the human population to only about 1000 breeding pairs, and we turned out fine, didn't we?

Sorry to be contrary, but that's entirely untrue. Putting aside the straw man you created, there is no statistically significant evidence presented in any properly conducted studies (key word is properly, the oft-cited one from a few decades ago has been proven to be poorly conducted) to suggest that children of incest have any more genetic mutations than other children.

And I also think you don't understand how genetics works. Nearly every person on the face of the planet has some bit of mutation; it's a natural part of the genetic process, and it's what the theory of evolution is based on. Every new generation has a little more variation because of some differences in the genetic code of the new generation. Sometimes these are harmful, and when this happens those with the harmful defects generally don't live to pass on those genes. It's kind of like trial and error on a planetary scale. However, sometimes such mutations are helpful. The sickle-cell gene became so prevalent because, though it produced other large problems, it provided a resistance to malaria, a highly common disease in the area of Africa it was most common in. Still, the vast majority of genetic mutation doesn't produce any discernible differences. Much of the genetic code is stuff that's never even used, so the mutated genes don't really do much; other times, the change is slight or something that is already common.

On a genetic level, though, there's no reason why incest would produce any different results genetically speaking than any other combination. In fact, incest is quite common in animal populations; if it was something that harmful to the offspring, it would have died off long ago.

Again, though, it's not something I support; merely something I tolerate. I think it's best to try to think about things from an objective standpoint even if I personally find such things absolutely disgusting.
Bingo.

Wow... I am kind of disgusted at the 'Pro incest' in this thread... lets hope you guys don't have siblings and breed with them...

Anyway, the law is ridiculous, you either allow abortions or you call it murder... why not get rid of one law before making the other one.

Also I am pro Abortion IF you've been raped or your child will be born with disabilities.

I am anti abortion if you've had a child because you were stupid and didn't wear protection.
Just because someone supports a person's right to live their life the way they want does not mean that they themselves practice a similar way of life. So a fifteen year old girl with no place to live, no way to support herself, and no one to help should be made to carry a child to term and be expected to raise a productive member of society?
"pps new screenie" - No, really shut up yuoaman.

Haaave you read my LP?
Pokémon Quartz - The only one of mine really worth reading.

What about my [Un]Abridged series?
Aquaman the Unabridged Parody Series - Language warning.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I doubt I'm helping my case when I say that I believe the only thing close to an absolute moral is murder. I agree with you on the harm thing... as long as what you do doesn't bring harm to another life, I'm all for it. But...

It all truly does boil down to the notion of "is a fetus a life?". I think we all can agree that the answer is: "I don't know". A fetus, while inside of the mother, fits the definition of a parasite perfectly. However, at the same time, after birth, it's still a bit of a parasite, because it wouldn't really survive without the mother. It's a sticky subject, and I won't deny that.

But, in a slight altercation of your words, I'll say that I do not believe a fetus is a life, therefor abortion is in no way murder.

This also gets into the idea of "is human life more important than other life?" For example, every time you wash your hands, you're killing bacteria. Why are there no laws against that? Theoretically, by Darwinism, any single-cell organism has the ability to evolve into a higher organism, so why isn't it considered murder?
Because murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Killing non-human organisms is not murder from a common law legal perspective.
Age 34
Female
Australia
Seen December 29th, 2011
Posted November 3rd, 2010
352 posts
12.9 Years
I'm not sure anyone here is "pro-incest," possibly because I don't know what you mean by that. Those who spoke up were simply being tolerant of a lifestyle choice.
A couple of people said they were ok with it, I think on the second page and I felt a little creeped out by that, just felt like mentioning it.

those who become pregnant due to irresponsibility probably aren't fit to take on the responsibilities of raising a child, and im not sure i like the idea of a child being raised by anyone so careless and neglectful. the way i see it, the embryo doesn't even have a central nervous system let alone a will to live, and keeping the option unavailable to all is like trapping a woman in her own body. until the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the mothers womb, i don't consider abortion the killing of a human being...and until it's actually born i don't feel anyone has the right to tell a woman what she ought to do with her parasitic offspring.
If they make a rule to let everyone have abortions if they needed, even those stupid enough to get preg by not wearing protection while having sex I'm not going to be pissed, I agree people should be able to do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone... I just think if you're stupid enough to sleep around and get preg and not be prepared for it then its not anyones fault but your own and I don't feel any sympathy for you (you = people in general)

So a fifteen year old girl with no place to live, no way to support herself, and no one to help should be made to carry a child to term and be expected to raise a productive member of society?
if a 15yr old is having unprotected sex gets preg and can't look after the baby, put it up for adoption.
The baby can still be born and have a good life just with a different family. Why should this stupid 15 yr old be allowed to get away with her mistakes by killing off her child. I bet the 15 yr old wouldn't learn her lesson either. People are stupid that way...mostly.
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


A couple of people said they were ok with it, I think on the second page and I felt a little creeped out by that, just felt like mentioning it.



If they make a rule to let everyone have abortions if they needed, even those stupid enough to get preg by not wearing protection while having sex I'm not going to be pissed, I agree people should be able to do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone... I just think if you're stupid enough to sleep around and get preg and not be prepared for it then its not anyones fault but your own and I don't feel any sympathy for you (you = people in general)



if a 15yr old is having unprotected sex gets preg and can't look after the baby, put it up for adoption.
The baby can still be born and have a good life just with a different family. Why should this stupid 15 yr old be allowed to get away with her mistakes by killing off her child. I bet the 15 yr old wouldn't learn her lesson either. People are stupid that way...mostly.
Exactly. Carrying a baby to term =/= Having to keep it and raise it.

But the point of this thread isn't a pro-life vs. pro-abortion debate.

Yuoaman

I don't know who I am either.

Age 30
Male
Ontario, Canada
Seen January 28th, 2023
Posted December 12th, 2018
4,582 posts
17.8 Years
Carrying a child to term is a messy business. Why should a woman be made to carry the child to term even if she has no way of getting enough of the proper vitamins, or is drinking/smoking/all of that business? By saying she has to carry it to term you run the risk of possible impairments in the child.
"pps new screenie" - No, really shut up yuoaman.

Haaave you read my LP?
Pokémon Quartz - The only one of mine really worth reading.

What about my [Un]Abridged series?
Aquaman the Unabridged Parody Series - Language warning.

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years


A couple of people said they were ok with it, I think on the second page and I felt a little creeped out by that, just felt like mentioning it.



If they make a rule to let everyone have abortions if they needed, even those stupid enough to get preg by not wearing protection while having sex I'm not going to be pissed, I agree people should be able to do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone... I just think if you're stupid enough to sleep around and get preg and not be prepared for it then its not anyones fault but your own and I don't feel any sympathy for you (you = people in general)



if a 15yr old is having unprotected sex gets preg and can't look after the baby, put it up for adoption.
The baby can still be born and have a good life just with a different family. Why should this stupid 15 yr old be allowed to get away with her mistakes by killing off her child. I bet the 15 yr old wouldn't learn her lesson either. People are stupid that way...mostly.
...And Adoption/Foster Care is by no means a fool proof system/a good alternative either. Sometimes finding out that you were adopted really screws you up, or your foster family turns out to be hideous, and your life ends up sucking anyway. The baby "could" or "might" grow up to have a normal, happy life, but that's not always the case.
Age 34
Female
Australia
Seen December 29th, 2011
Posted November 3rd, 2010
352 posts
12.9 Years


...And Adoption/Foster Care is by no means a fool proof system/a good alternative either. Sometimes finding out that you were adopted really screws you up, or your foster family turns out to be hideous, and your life ends up sucking anyway. The baby "could" or "might" grow up to have a normal, happy life, but that's not always the case.
But you could say that about anything, the kid's biological parent could be someone rich and well off but that doesn't mean they'd be better off with that person if they turn out to be abusive or something, either way its a lucky draw.

And I'd think if Abortion laws changed so that careless pregs can't be aborted they'd have to revamp the adoption process too to make it more suitable. Anyway this is all an idea and my opinion really, for all I know the kid would be worse off being born and put into foster sooo eh

also haha i think I've taken this off topic :| sorry!
This signature has been disabled.
No spoilers allowed in signature.
Please review and fix the issues by reading the signature rules.

You must edit it to meet the limits set by the rules before you may remove the [sig-reason] code from your signature. Removing this tag will re-enable it.

Do not remove the tag until you fix the issues in your signature. You may be infracted for removing this tag if you do not fix the specified issues. Do not use this tag for decoration purposes.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Something that came to mind as a result of the (in my opinion, unfounded) claim that "genetic defects are more common among inbred children" was "is abortion all right if the child has a genetic defect?" The argument is that it may be all right if it is to save a child from the suffering he or she will have to endure.

As someone who considers himself "pro-choice," I feel the decision is ultimately up to the mother. However, I do not think that is a valid reason to consider an abortion. I seem to remember a documentary I was shown in junior high where they asked a person with a very painful and crippling genetic defect if they wish they had never been born. The person said that was ridiculous and that, despite it all, they were still happy to be alive. I think that says more than enough about the validity of such an argument. If even one person with a genetic disorder is happy to be alive, the choice of such a person to live should be left up to him or her. Still, I believe that if the mother disagrees, she should be allowed to make that decision until the third trimester (I am opposed to third trimester abortions in all cases aside from where another life is at risk). I don't feel that it's right to push my morals on someone else. I do, however, feel I am within my rights to try to convince such a person to change his or her mind.

On another note, I'd also like to state that the idea that two people shouldn't be allowed to have a child because of a (potentially) increased chance of genetic defects seems, to me, akin to eugenics, something to which I am strongly opposed.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me
Age 26
Female
Waiting for an open toliet
Seen April 29th, 2011
Posted April 7th, 2011
96 posts
12.8 Years
Wow... I am kind of disgusted at the 'Pro incest' in this thread... lets hope you guys don't have siblings and breed with them...

Anyway, the law is ridiculous, you either allow abortions or you call it murder... why not get rid of one law before making the other one.

Also I am pro Abortion IF you've been raped or your child will be born with disabilities.

I am anti abortion if you've had a child because you were stupid and didn't wear protection.
So you think it's right to punish a child by his father's actions?

Whether you like it or not, abortion is killing someone. Whether you consider it murder is another case.

That's why so many women feel SO guilty after they get an abortion.

I believe women can choose what they want, but i really think they should consider the child inside them first. Aborting their child is totally selfish.


I have been raped by my brother countless times. Do you think if i got pregnant i should punish my baby? Do you think somehow the baby will be some ****/rapist?


....ill stop preaching...