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

Post Reply New Topic

Are we committing murder everytime we spray Lysol? Why should those poor bacteria have to suffer?

All these people arguing that abortion is justified if the mother is poor and cannot support her child:

using that logic, parents ought to murder their (already born) children if the (previously rich) parents happen to become bankrupt or made redundant, right? I mean, that's what your logic is saying: "If you can't support your children, murder them."



That seems barbaric to me.

And to the person arguing that we ought to murder babies who have genetic diseases: again, the problem with that is that you are making that decision for the baby. You are not giving the baby the chance to come into the world and decide for itself whether it wants to live or not.

If that person really hates life as much as you predict, they can always kill themself later on, but you are not giving them the freedom to try out life and see whether or not they like it. I do not advocate suicide, but I believe it is far less selfish than murder. At least the person committing suicide is making the decision for themself, on the basis that they've tried life and couldn't stand it. If a person with a horrible genetic disease grows up and hates life and suffers chronic pain and wishes they were dead, they can always kill themself. But I do not believe anybody has the right to decide whether another person lives or dies.

What gives you the right to decide to murder a baby just because you know it's going to suffer and feel lots of pain? I do not believe you have the right to play God and abort all the babies who have illnesses, and only spare the ones who don't. I think that is wrong.

Imagine if they screened all unborn babies for autism and aborted anyone who was autistic, on the grounds that the autism would cause us lots of emotional pain and suffering and loneliness and despair in the future, and make our lives horrible. Where would that leave us?

You only have to look into the Haven to see that there are lots of miserable lonely autistic people in the world. Does that mean that you think we should kill them all to put them out of their misery?

Plodder, your argument is emotional and not based in reason. We make decisions for people every day. We pay politicians insane amounts of money to make decisions that directly effect our lives for us. We pay doctors a healthy amount of money to decide the best course of action in treating any illness or infirmity we have.

Parents are a wonderful example of making decisions for people. They decide, for the most part, what their children eat, what their children do, what clothes they wear, and a thousand other little things. Parents make decisions for children and infants because that's part of being a parent, and getting an abortion is just another decision (be it because the pregnancy is unwanted, not feasible economically, dangerous to the mother, or any other reason).

On what basis are you making that accusation? My argument is based on human decency, morals, and logic. I have made no hysterical, wailing pleas. I have merely stated my opinion and explained why I have it, so there are no grounds for you to dismiss my views as "emotional" just because you don't agree. If anything, yours seems to be the more "emotional" one, because the pro-abortionists on here seem to be getting angry and rude and anger is an emotion. The rude angry defensive people seem to be far more "emotional" about this issues than the pro-lifers are. The "emotion" I feel when I think about it is sadness, not anger and rudeness.

I have tried to point out that pro-abortionists are very selective with the situations when they apply their logic, and you've failed to respond to that. You're trying to justify murdering babies that are still inside the womb by saying "their mothers can't afford to provide for them" yet what I'm trying to point out is that you do not apply that logic to children that are already grown. When children are in poverty, they are not rounded up and shot. Instead, they are (hopefully) taken into care, placed in orphanages, or their parents are given financial aid from the government.

All I'm trying to do is point out that your justification for murder only seems to apply when children are inside the womb, and that is not logical. You do not apply the same reasoning once they have come out. What is "emotional" about pointing out that your logic is conveniently selective?



How is any of that relevant to the topic?



I find it absolutely disgusting and astonishing that you are likening abortion to a parent selecting food and clothes for his or her children. Do you really see ending a life as "just another decision?"

"Oh, honey, today I've decided you're going to have ham sandwiches, and I've decided you have to wear your red shirt, and go to bed at eight. Oh, and honey? I've also decided to kill you."

I fail to spot the similarity there at all. It's rather sick.

Also, killing an unborn foetus is not "part of being a parent." If you decide to kill it, you are, by definition, not a parent.

Your baby is now dead, so you have no child left, and therefore are not a parent any more. You are only considered " a parent" if you have an actual child. If you have no child left, you are now, at best, a bereaved parent.

I heard somebody point out the other day that there is no actual word for a parent who is bereaved. When a person loses his or her spouse, he or she becomes a widower or widow. When a child loses their parents, they become an orphan. But when a person loses a child, they become a....a what? The loss is so great that our language does not even have a word to describe it.

The fact that people who have abortions are actually deliberately bereaving themselves of their own children just makes the loss even more tragic. It's less tragic for the "parents," of course, because all they will feel is relief that they have got rid of the "problem" and the "inconvenience" of the "thing" that was inside the mother's body. But the loss is a thousand times more tragic for the child, because its death is not even mourned. No one cried for it. No one wished it could have lived. Instead, they rejoiced that it was now dead. How sick.

People like that are not truly parents at all. That is my opinion. I am entitled to have my opinion respected and not dismissed as "emotional" just because my feelings about the matter are different to yours. As I said, the only emotion it rouses in me is sadness and disgust. The only emotion it seems to rouse in pro-abortionists is defensiveness and anger. So both sides feel "emotional" about it, but in a different way.

@Plodder:

I guess that post was towards me. You are relatively new here, and I never fully introduced myself. My name is iBlockhead, and I have this strange writing style that makes numerous people seem to misinterpret my posts.

I appreciate you for being consistent about this, including the vitriol you spew towards people who differ from your views on this matter, I see you are non-discriminatory in this. I'm going to repeat this: there is no cure for Tay-Sachs. The child is going to die, no question. It is not going to have a choice in the matter, it's going to die. Horribly. And you say it's murder if it gets aborted before the people who love that child see the inevitable their own eyes. Who's barbaric here? Stay close to a facility that tests for Tay-Sachs, find a couple it's going to happen to, and say it to their face that they're murderers if they abort the child. You do that, and you tape it and post it here. How much is the couple feel terrible because you said that to them? I dare you, find one and practice what you preach. Talk is cheap here, anyone can be brave when no one can see them. Maybe stay near Ashkenazi Jews, that's a good place to start. I'm expecting some quality video from you.

I've got news for you: that family probably doesn't want that child aborted. That's another problem with your argument.

I should have just said HIV/AIDS (answer that please). Tay-Sachs might have been too over the top.

The suicide part and the part about suicide if you think their life is miserable you just made up. I never even implied that. I was only talking about fetuses, and apparently you think I am going to perform a Holocaust on autistic people. This is just as laughable as the charge that black people are going to be wiped off the United States because of abortion.

I'm going to help you out: I'm an engineer, and I am building a time machine for you to put you in your proper time and place: Communist Romania. You'll love it there as long as you are on the Securitate's good side. No contraception and no abortion for the people who just want to have sex willy-nilly and abort out of convenience. Then you can see what happens if you get your way. The charge that Ceaucescu had population laws isn't relevant here. The orphanages are a reminder what might happen when people don't have the ability to care for the ones they love, and if there are laws enacting the compete forbiddance of contraception and abortion. That's my inspiration for my post. That child's going to be born, and it is going to be whisked away to some place if it's brought to term and you cannot support it (major psychological blow for the family by the way), and let's just hope it's alright. You can go there, and you can see those children live in decrepit conditions, starving and diseased with no hope except for some miracle (it was thought that they had autism when some were adopted and brought to the UK, it was that bad), then come back to this time and you tell me that I might have a point here.

I'm going to beat you to it: any child who was going to be sent to the orphanages should have been aborted. No question. But in this day and age, instead of being sent to a Ceaucescu orphanage, you have to deal with a basic and smaller decrepit or improper, disease-ridden, and inhospitable place for any child to grow up in. And it could be also any place where the family doesn't have the proper means to give it what it needs to live: well-lit surburban homes, homeless people, urban sprawl-covered landscape, etc. Whatever the case, it won't get a chance just like those children of getting proper medical care or food or a place to themselves where it can sleep. I'm quite sorry that you called me a murderer because you didn't know that and what I thought. I'm quite sorry that I won't let another human being live in squalid conditions because some idiot tells them they're murderers if they abort. I'm doubling down on this to see what you would do: if you can't take care of the child, it OK to consider abortion.

That child has a right to live humanely. If it's going to starve every night or sleep in some habitat where it cannot peacefully be and is in constant danger, or it's not going to get the proper medical care every human being deserves, then I guess I'm being put on murder charges. What's the penalty? I'm sure you thought of that when you made the statement, so what is it?

Children who have already been born could be left to die of exposure as infants (like Oedipus), sacrificed to some God, or, if a bit older, abandoned in a forest (like Hansel and Gretel).

This would work in a Conservative Eutopian society. Our present Nanny State won't countenance it.

The fallacy of your logic, though, is that another party (such as the Government) could take immediate custody of any child. Taking custody of a fetus is impossible.

Which part of 'self defense' didn't you understand? You're not obliged to let yourself be harmed out of 'unselfishness'.

People aren't obliged to indefinitely give up of themselves for others. There are reasonable things to expect and then there are things that are just harms no matter how you slice it. It's like saying to a raped woman that she was selfish for fighting back because all the rapist wanted was two minutes of her life.

What's your point re: surgery? I'm not obliged to continue a process that puts me in danger of being cut open.

Neither is your argument of getting on a bus analogous. Bus drivers are responsible and trained personnel. I'd very likely need a cesarean due to my pelvis being so tiny I look like a guy from some angles.

None of this makes abortion anything other than self defense.

Pregnancy is already a huge invasion of the mother's health.

1: Morals are emotional and subjective. Human decency is emotional and subjective. Your logic fails to consider that, before a certain point, a foetus cannot survive outside of it's mothers womb (where it has no right to be if it's unwanted for any reason). Simple. If a mother doesn't want the baby but wishes to carry it full term, there are other options such as adoption. Also simple.

2: Your argument was that making a decision for someone else is wrong, or at least that is how I read it, which may not be how it was intended to be read. I was pointing out that decisions are made for people every day.

3. Astonishing and disgusting? Why? Again, you were saying that it isn't right for a parent (or parent-to-be) to make decisions for the child. I was pointing out that it happens every single day and yet you have no problem with it happening what it doesn't conflict with your beliefs. Yes, I do so getting an abortion as "just another decision", because that's all it is. No one has ever shown me, in any way, how it deserves to be called anything but.

An abortion is similar to birth control, erasing what has the potential to someday be a human, something the human body does naturally on a regular basis. Unless you are prepared to argue that birth control is also wrong, I fail to see why any distinction should be made.

And yes, deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is part of being a parent. It's a decision every parent makes, even if it isn't one they really consider.

The rest of your natter: All of that is simply emotional natter. If you fail to see that, you need to go read the definition of an emotional argument. You argue abortion is "tragic". Emotional. You argue abortion is "sick". Emotional. You argue that there is no word for a bereaved parent because the loss is simply that great. Emotional. All of that is worthless in a debate.

Actually, that kind of behavior did not show up among the Hebrew people, in fact the Romans thought of the Jewish people as somehow backward or primitive for refusing to practice infanticide.

Using a child as a human sacrifice is forbidden in both the Jewish Faith, and Christianity.

You're calling abortion "sick" "sad" and "killing" the first two are emotional, the third got taken way out of context. If you go back and read what you wrote, you imply that the parent actually kills their kid long after it was born.

Sure you're entitled to that opinion, but other people are entitled to disagree.

So you're now admitting that the child you're talking about killing another human being.

You never heard of Jephtha?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=GNT

Rape, incest, and danger to the mother are the *only* instances where I would support abortion.

Are you talking about the kid Plodder was referring to when comparing abortion to killing a what could have been a school aged child? I know the original post was a lot of reading (trust me I know), but it would've clued you in to the context we were working with.