I agree, but I didn't say that they were raped. I said you could presume they were raped. You are perfectly capable of making and choosing to make that presumption.

I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There's simply hardly any other way.

There most certainly is another way. You are under no obligation to ask. You don't need to create an obligation for her to tell. Even if you did ask and she did tell, she could have some reason for lying and claiming it was consensual when it actually wasn't, so you can ignore any answer she gives.

The "other way" is to allow you to presume that she meets whatever criteria you believe necessary to justify and permit abortion. If you need to believe she was raped, presume she was raped. If you need her life to be in danger, go right ahead and presume her life is in danger.

One last point: You are under zero obligation to presume that her sexual encounters were consensual. If you choose to presume consent, I'd like to know your rationale for doing so. And I'd like to know how fairly you will be treating a rape victim seeking an abortion if you presume consent that was not granted.

[–] Demdaru 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

About presuming she met any criteria: If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions, then this approach is not only invalid, but also damaging. It will work against the target of removing casual abortions while also removing a lot of weight behind act of rape. The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims. Also, this means that woman would have to prove she's a victim - by gaining second opinion, most probably with the help of police, maybe could be done by medical specialist. I'd honestly rather lean onto the other, to remove need for criminal investigation if such is unwanted by victim.

About last point: I choose to presume consent because great majority of children is conceived consensually, and as such this is default, and I'd treat a rape victim as a rape victim, not much to say about that one. Case by case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions

The only "unneeded" abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is "needed". (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother's needs are valid, so the only abortion that is "unneeded" is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)

The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.

The only "help" our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn't requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn't asked for your help; she doesn't want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What "help" are you going to force on her against her will?

About last point: I choose to presume consent

I'll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don't get to make that "choice".

The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.

#You may never infer consent from silence.

If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn't want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.

[–] Demdaru 1 points 6 days ago

The only "unneeded" abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will.

Abortion is killing off another human being, so it's not really that black and white. Also, I agree that forced abortions are, at the very least, unneeded.

The only "help" our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn't requested it from you.

What I meant by help is therapy, societal support and the like. If we just presume that every woman wanting abortion is a rape victim, these forms of help would loose support due to lessening the weight of situation.

Why are you choosing to involve yourself?

The only place I chose to involve myself initially was in calling a human being brought into this world through people knowing what they are doing a parasite.

I'll stop you right there.

It was you who wanted to kniw my rationale. I simply responded.

As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.

Meanwhile, however, you require others to presume that there's a rape victim. This means there's criminal act, and thus is a valid justification.

If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn't want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.

I'll be honest, only at this point I actually got what you are going for, but sadly, it applies both ways and depends highly on someones morality. While I cannot say in good faith that I would choose life of an unborn baby over it's mothers health - be it mental or physical - there are people whose moral compas wouldn't allow to simply accept killing off such child. There are also more reasonable - in ny opinion - people who simply don't want us to kill off unborns due to the mere convienience.

My point from the get go was, however, to not treat creating a new living being from activity meant for doing just that as a surpise and/or punishment. For people to think about what they are doing, and what consequences may be.