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

Post Reply New Topic

QFT
And what a lovely world it would be with even more unwanted children. Aren't there enough of us already? We're already destroying the planet with our numbers.

more children would be wanted if society changed and shared the burden so that it would be a light burden.

For one, abortion isn't murder.

Secondly, yes it is the same. Death is death.

*facepalm*


Get a clue, kiddo. First and foremost, most people who want children prefer to raise their own children and not somebody elses children! Those who do raise the children of others also prefer to raise children who are their blood relatives. Second of all, in a post-industrial society with a very large population, it is unrealistic to expect "society" to share the burden of raising millions of children. This does NOT mean that people aren't willing to look out for children and come to their assistance when their parents(or primary legal guardians)are unable or unwilling to do so. And it sure as bloody hell does not mean turning a blind eye to the abuse and neglect of children by their parents or family. But you can't expect an entire *society* to be colletively responsible for all of its children.

"Conservatives" only care about fetuses making it out of the womb alive (or, at least, dying in the street when the mother dies in the street). After that, they just don't give a damn about the children or the mothers. When the children become able to work, they can move from orphanages to work houses.

"abortion isn't murder" is only your opinion. It is an opinion not shared by millions of people worldwide.

A lot of people do not share the flawed logic that "killing a baby once it's outside of the womb is murder, but killing it when it's inside is not." Murder is murder, no matter where the victim happens to be. Location is irrelevant. If you kill a baby outside the womb, it's called infanticide. Murder that takes place inside the womb is referred to abortion. Abortion is therefore just a euphemism for infanticide.

I believe the reason the baby murderers use a euphemism is to ease their consciences and pretend to themselves they aren't committing murder - but they are.

Your argument that "all deaths are the same" would not stand up in a court of law. I am not talking about the physical process of dying; I am talking about the legal description of how that death came about.

If you went out with an axe and murdered somebody with it, I am afraid the judge would not agree with you that deliberate murder is the same thing as death from natural causes. You would be found guilty of murder.

Mothers who suffer a miscarriage and lose their babies due to natural causes are not in the same category as mothers who deliberately murder the babies themselves, and call it "abortion." So no, all deaths are not the same. Some of them happen due to natural causes, and some of them are deliberately brought about by other people.

Abortion is self defense, not murder.

Killing something that is altering my endocrine system, splitting my abdominal wall open, damaging my joints via relaxin and possibly causing me to need surgery is self defense, not murder.

Good point.

The problem with your reasoning is that a baby is not a "thing." It is a human being, not a tumor.

All I see in your argument are the words "me, I, my." I don't see any mention of taking the baby into consideration

From the baby's point of view, when you are killing it you are doing more than "altering its endocrine system" or "splitting its abdominal wall open" or "damaging its joints" or "possibly causing it to need surgery." From the baby's point of view, it is being killed.

Pro-abortionists are selfish. Their arguments all centre around "me, me, me, me, me, and what's best for ME."

How sad.

People do need to think of themselves first.

Capitalism and Conservatism are not based on altruism. Far from it. "Survival of the Fittest" is the Capitalist mantra.

If a pregnant woman has no means of feeding and sheltering herself, and can't afford doctors and hospitals, then she would be better off aborting the fetus. It is better that the fetus should die than both should die.

Conservatives expect perfect altruism from women, but are not even remotely altruistic themselves.

I really don't care if that makes me selfish. Pregnancy and childbirth is a horrible thing to go through (especially if you never even wanted kids anyways) and there is no way I'm going through that. I also don't like kids and never wanted any.

At least I don't have to worry about getting pregnant any more but that doesn't mean I'll just flop over to the other side now that I'm safe from pregnancy.

There's your problem. The arguments in favour of abortion are all based on what is best for the mother. None of them are based on what's best for the child. Everyone should be given a chance to live. It makes no difference whether they are being born into a rich family or a poor one. If everybody followed your logic, then no poor people would be allowed to have babies. Poor people all ought to be forced to have abortions, according to your crazy logic.



Actually, the alternative to abortion is not that both die, but rather, assuming nothing goes wrong during the birth, that both live. Medical care is greatly improved these days. In developed countries, hardly any women die giving birth any more.

So abortion = mother lives and baby dies, whereas birth = both mother and baby live.

I wonder if all these people who are selfishly having abortions would be willing to do the deed themselves and murder a baby with their own bare hands once it had been born? I'm guessing most decent people would not. Yet they apparently see nothing wrong with hiring a doctor to murder it for them while it is still inside, by pretending to themselves that it is not a person. It's just a "thing."

Not if our Conservatives have their way. The pregnant woman will be unemployable, broke and homeless. The fetus dies with its mother. If she aborts, then at least she is able to work and survives.

I actually considered that when I was pregnant but thought a home birth by myself would have been too risky. I could have died. Plus too many people knew I was pregnant so I would have gone to prison. You do on occasion hear about women that have their baby outside a hospital and dump it somewhere. That is why some places have laws that there are certain places where you can dump an unwanted infant, no questions asked.



That is not your belief but some people do think there is a difference between killing it before it can survive outside the mother and killing it after it is actually born. Once it's born killing it is unnecessary. You can give it away.

If you ended up needing surgery due to a pregnency (and I'm not referring to attempted infanticide as surgery), it is rather likely that the child would be able to survive being outside the womb at that point. Heck doctors had to do surgery to get me out cause I managed to get my head stuck in my mother's ribcage...

Other incidents that end up involving surgery usually involve issues that involve health threats to the infant, not the mother...

To be blunt, you are in danger everytime you get on a bus or get in a taxi, as far as pregnencies actual danger to the mother has gone down rather significantly as technology has progressed, this isn't the Dark Ages.

Your opinion is not supported by evidence, however. Up until a certain point (some 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy I believe, perhaps even later) the baby cannot survive outside the womb. It is not it's own organism, it doesn't have a life to take away yet. One cannot murder something that isn't alive.

Simple chain of logic. I haven't a clue why you can't understand. Next time, try a an argument based on reason instead of emotional bull that means about as much as the dog turd I stepped on earlier.