If a girl is raped and pregnant, should she keep the baby?

Post Reply New Topic

You think that a woman who has been raped is "running around having irresponsible sexual intercoruse" ...??! !

f**k.
Well, that just says it all about you, buddy.


Faith works best when it doesn't make testable, real-world claims.

No. There is something said.

Please see: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

For starters the first commandment ever given was: Be fruitful and multiply.

So for an abortion to be permitted there must be very serious and pressing reasons.

Read the above article which will give you pointers to both the written Torah and the Oral Tradition which has equal status with the written Torah.

ruveyn

No, I'm saying that I'm not being a hypocrit here. Most abortions are from two people having irresponsible sex, not due to rape.

Again to throw this right back in your face, the child didn't commit any crime and you know it. Since you know that implying the child is the criminal would be easily deflated (and turn people sitting on the fence against you), you are resorting to saying the child is somehow not a person. You know they used that kind of argument to justify slavery. The Nazis used that kind of argument to justify their attempt to wipe out the Jewish people.

The instant there is any brain activity regardless of how simplistic it is, we are dealing with another human being. You know that if you acknowledge that fact your side's entire argument is largely obliterated, so you deny the fact the child's brain is functioning, even when the evidence is right in front of your face. You try to claim that the brain activity isn't complex enough, well sorry but your argument is quite frankly a load of BS, and I'm going to call it for what it is.

What matters is the brain is active, it doesn't matter the complexity of the brainwaves on day 47-48, all that matters is the fact there is brain activity at all. It is well known that the child's body is creating brain cells at an astronomical rate, causing brain function to increase at a rapid pace.

If you want to argue about brain activity not being complex enough, I'm going to call you out for trying to dehumanize fellow human beings so you can justify mass murder.



Seriously, I can kinda tell you've pretty much lost the debate. Earlier you were trying to bash people over the fact they have faith and are somehow idiots because of that, now you're trying to misquote scripture (or use it out of context) and use that distortion to support your position.

Source? I don't really care either way it's information not relevant to my own position but a claim like this should be backed up.




If you want it in law that a fetus growing within the body of a woman without her consent is a crime I'm sure it could be arranged, would be pretty dumb though.(it would be comparable to criminalizing tapeworms for infesting someone)



Do you mean only in human fetuses? If not are you against animal harvesting? And humans find it morally acceptable to kill other humans all the time, it's not that big of a road block.



Are you trying to claim some objective measure of humanity?



I would say reducing humanity to the level of a lump of meat with no reasoning skills is dehumanizing to many people.
position.

Again, your brain activity thing is pseudoscience at its best. Brain activity is not the same as nerve activity. Until 20-ish week the fetus is essentially headless as there is no connection at all between sensors and brain. In other words, it is definitely incapable of feeling anything.

Your claim that complexity is irrelevant and that even if it is simplest is holy would work if you used week 20 instead of day 47. But unfortunately, you didn't.

Besides, you keep avoiding questions. Since even by your beliefs there is no brain activity before day 47, then surely you would be ok with abortion before that day, right?



You keep using the same loaded discourse. If you haven't noticed yet we are pretty tired of it. And it does not really impress us when you use wrong terminology just because you feel it makes your argument stronger (it basically has the opposite effect).

Even if abortion was about killing human beings (and it definitely isn't), it would be homicide but not murder, there is a whole definition of murder which you shall look it up... It would also definitely not be 'mass homicide' either as most likely the woman will be aborting one fetus and not the whole civilization.




Do you think this is some sort of contest? Don't you see that this 'debate' has consequences including a potential list of kids that will come to exist because you yelling that abortion is murder. Kids that will need to be raised and need health care. Reminds me you are still pretending to avoid the question. Why is it you are denying your responsibility and still have not adopted any kid?

Not to mention, it is rather ironic for you to say that it looks like the other side lost the debate in the very same post in which you Godwinned the argument.

That's Inuyasha.

The brain, spinal cord, and heart start developing before any of the other major organs, nice try but the sensory organs such as eyes develop later.





Homicide can be murder, and again you are saying that the pre-meditated killing of another human being isn't murder, sorry but it actually is 1st degree murder.




Do you think this is some sort of contest? Don't you see that this 'debate' has consequences including a potential list of kids that will come to exist because you yelling that abortion is murder. Kids that will need to be raised and need health care. Reminds me you are still pretending to avoid the question. Why is it you are denying your responsibility and still have not adopted any kid?[/quote]

I also practice abstenence, and the fact I can't handle taking care of a kid atm, doesn't not mean I'm being hypocritical. If I was having sex all over the place and getting women pregnent, then that would be hypocritical. Since I am still a virgin, your hypocracy argument falls flat on its face.




Heh, cute but even Godwin admitted there are times that his little rule did not apply and comparing something to the attitudes surrounding the holocaust were a valid comparison. I would think the systematic mass murder of children is a good example where the argument is valid.

Sensory organs which are not plugged to the brain until week 20 regardless of how developed they are.

And by week 20 I actually mean week 26. See Thalamic connections for more information.

You have not answered the question. So I will repeat it . Since even by your beliefs, there is no brain at all till day 47, then even you should be ok with abortions in day 46, right?

Oversimplification.



No one cares that you practice abstinence. You better stop denying your responsibilities. Every abortion you prevent by your speech that it is OMG MURDERZ is a kid whose existence is in great part your responsibility. Practicing abstinence does not get you off the hook.

It seems you believe that not being able to take care of a kid is a good reason to avoid responsibility. So I don't get why the contempt at women who abort. Specially those who abort before day 45.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 22 Aug 2011, 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not what I said, the brain is still there, we just have not detected brain activity until 47 days after conception. If newer tests show that brain activity starts earlier, well I'm all for moving up the line to fit the brain activity being detected. My preconditions is based on the fact the brain is actually showing some activity.

Except that brain activity has not really been shown to exist beyond your pseudoscience claim that confuses nerve activity with brain activity.

Brain activity that does not have any sensory input does not sound anything like the human process of thinking. And that does not even mention how incredibly primitive that sort of activity would be.

If we set the bar earlier that means even more primitive. Still without sensorial connections. And we reach the stage in which brain does not exist. Cause I guess even you would agree that a fertilized egg does not have a brain. And of course we have the science to tell that nothing ressembling a human brain exists until week 4. That is 28 days. Shouldn't you be fine with abortion before the 28-th day?
Of course, even if you set the bar very low and care only about the first layer of "brain" that is developed the same way as our first multicelular ancestors, that does not happen until day 5... So, you should be perfectly fien with abortion on day 4.



... Not to mention that statistically the great majority of abortions occur in in the embryonic stage. That means before week 9. Which makes the most sense anyway as it is also less risky.

Well, I'm done repeating myself. For the hundredth and final time in this thread:
neural activity does not mean brain activity. Regardless of how we measure neural activity, anatomical and histological studies preclude sentience until at least week 20, probably week 26.
Women who have been raped should not be further physically assaulted by being forced to carry a rapist's offspring to term. Anyone who claims otherwise should, at the very least, be forced to adopt an unclaimed infant by random assignment.

There's something not quite right about that title.

It's not a baby if it's yet to be born.

It is not murder to decide that you are not going to undergo a serious medical condition for anyone else's sake, let alone for a fetus.

Your comparison to the Jews does not hold up. The Jews were not asking for the right to override anyone else's rights, let alone to violate anyone's body.

Again, NO NEOCORTEX before week 25/6 or so. Why should your theories override medical evidence?

You can repeat what you're saying till you bust the keys on your keyboard, it still won't make what you are saying true.

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

What this thread really means is should the rape victim marry the rapist?