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

Post Reply New Topic

I like how Inuyasha hasn't snarked me or answered to anything I posted. That wasn't cool for AngelRho to PM him saying I am a vicious heterophobe and am too crazy to be reasoned with.

...Heterophobe? Oh poor heterosexuals. They are oppressed everyday and often forced into suicide because homosexuals bully them for their sexual orie....


....Oh.

You really need to stop with the false equivalencies, sperm cells, like skin cells are entirely my genetic code, as a multi-celled organism there are cells that die all the time. The difference here is that the child's DNA is not an exact match of either parent, the child's DNA is unique to that child.



I think that if a same-sex couple wants to adopt and if it isn't going to be an abusive environment (heterosexuals and homosexuals both can potentially be abusive), then yeah I see no problem with it.

As far as a male rape victim, would I want my son or daughter in the hands of a rapist, hell no! This idea of the man being able to wak away from their kid like that is quite frankly irresponsible. I just think the woman in the case of her being the rapist should not be allowed to have custody of the child when he or she is born.

So who exactly is stopping the male from filing for custody?

Generally courts will side with women in a custody case, even if the woman is a sexual predator.

....No. I know a woman who lost her child simply because she had Severe Depression and had tried to kill herself in the past. This is just completely wrong.

I don't think anyone is not allowing them to voice their opinions. If they could voice an opinion then we would be able to take it into consideration, but this isn't possible. All we can do is speculate as to any experience of conscious thought it might have.

So then, you could say we have to protect those who can't advocate for themselves. But then we hit up against the woman again and her right to advocate for herself and any possible offspring.

What is it, 70%-80% of children screened for Down's Syndrome in the UK get aborted if it is positive? Since a genetic screen is overwhelmingly used to consider an abortion, that means people who get the screen don't always abort if there is a hit (which seems silly to me, but whatever). There are no exceptions during a genocide. People committing the genocide don't just spare people out of the goodness of their heart or mercy. Everyone dies. So by that observation, this isn't even close to a genocide. The term 'genocide' is used mostly by anti-neurodiversity 'Aspie supremacists' who think NTs are always out to get them, and it's scaremongering.

I'm sure you can think of a way that genetic screens can be widely distributed, because I cannot. It is so blatant that the point of the test is to commit an abortion no one in our government is even going to touch it. I am ignorant about the availability of genetic screens through private insurance, which could be really embarrassing on my part though, but I'll live with it. There is growing literature and advocacy of what autism is in most countries (there is a story in Grinker's book Unstrange Minds about a South African witch doctor noting the symptoms and sending the child and its parents to a doctor to get diagnosed), and more structures are being set up to help children with autism, and so according to my position, there would a lean to the position that an abortion is less likely to be considered. This whole genocide thing is sheer nonsense, and I told you it's just as laughable as believing that Maafa-21 video about the extermination of blacks through abortion in America.

A rapist should never have custody over a child once it's born, but even death row inmates cannot be compelled to donate parts of their body to other people; even a female rapist should be compelled bu the state to donate her body to a zef if she doesn't want to.

Actually the official religious right position is that a rapist is required to make a marriage proposal to the victim if the victim is unmarried but if the victim is married the rapist must be executed. If the rapist gets married he can never be granted a divorce.

At the onset: The bible alternates between telling reality as it is, and inferring sometimes overtly, sometimes with great subtlety, how it ought to be.

It was necessary in the ancient near east to make men accountable for their actions. Woman needed to be married off, it was a different social arrangement and she needed children to have worth in society because that then ties her back to her husbands family if anything ever happened to him in battle.

If she chooses to marry the man who raped her, he is never allowed to divorce, and is stuck with her for life. No where else in the world do they not only offer the above mentioned to the raped girl, but, no where else in the world was a raped woman's dignity and worth FULLY restored following a rape. A woman obviously never chooses to get raped, but what is also never mentioned is the devaluation she undergoes by society for being a raped person, and this is most of the world in 2012, from Africa to Asia to South America, and the MIddle East, even here in the US. Ancient Israel lead womens rights 3000 years ago, they lead it today in the 21st century.

That's not how right and wrong works. You don't get to violate people even to survive. Including fetuses. If it's a person then guess what...it is subject to the same boundaries everyone else has. No born person gets to force access to someone's body even to survive.

And no, I'm not taking anger out on anyone, I'm simply not open to carrying a pregnancy for any reason. I wouldn't carry a pregnancy even if it was from consensual sex (which is entirely hypothetical, because I don't plan on having sex).

This is assuming that the Israelites actually followed the law, and that's exactly what it was designed for--to bring mercy and dignity to hostile world that objectified human beings and often treated them as property rather than persons. The Bible recognizes this fact of ancient life and then seeks to make it livable. As long as Israel lived according to these conventions, they were a shining light to the rest of the world. Giving women an equal standing with men makes many, if not most, of these laws moot. Where Christians have had a lasting influence slavery has been eliminated as an institution or driven underground. Laws regarding the treatment of slaves need not even be mentioned if there is no slavery to be regulated! Jesus even said that divorce laws existed only because God knew the wickedness of men's hearts, not because God wants people to marry and divorce. And it seems to me that much of your OT laws have the same basis. Love God, love others, and the rest is a no-brainer.

If you're never going to have sex, then you're never going to have to worry about it. The problem here is that you're presuming to tell OTHER people what morality calls they can and cannot make. It's just as unfair as men presuming to tell women what they can/cannot do with their own bodies. You've put yourself outside the circle.

You can still worry about it. You could get raped.

I'm not telling anyone else what to do. I'm saying everyone should have the choice they want to make, whether that is to have an abortion or to not have one no matter what.

and you are doing excactly the same,

difference is you are trying to decide how the body of others should be used and she her own.