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

Post Reply New Topic

Really, though it is not a very useful argument.

True, I - or you, or Dr Zamenhof, or the Queen of England, or Hitler, or Lucille Ball or any of the several humans born in the last century - COULD have been aborted. Or miscarried. Or never conceived. Or damaged at birth. Or struck by lightning. or died of swine flu. Or choked on a button. Or bitten by a poisonous snake. Whatever.

But we were not.

And any one of the several humans not born or killed before attaining the age of 5 in the last century COULD have lived instead of us.

But they did not.

Effect on the world? Hitler gets aborted - but Groszko the Monster of Lwow destroys half of Europe. Einstein is never conceived - but Weatherby-Smythe attains adulthood and designs the Quark Cell. The wotld goes on and neverr knows WHAT it missed good or bad.

Meanwhile A gripes this is no world to bring a child into, B wishes she was never born, C wishes I had never been born, and D worries about overpopulation

------------

There are better arguments. None of which work anyway unless we have agreed premises.

I don't care what CAN says about abortion.

I also don't care what you say about abortion.

Both you and CAN are too biased. And unreasonable. And you both think you're right. And you're both not.

So you're saying a woman who gives birth to a child who is the product of rape, she shouldn't be able to even give him/her up for adoption? That's what it sounds like to me.

It's what I'm seeing too. Also, believe it or not sometimes the women are the rapists, not men. Should she be allowed to simply abort the kid due to her own actions? When the father is willing to take the kid?


Two wrongs does not make a right.

Rape is wrong.

Infanticide is also wrong.

People here are saying that: wrong + wrong = right.

Yes, this is true. But no one here is talking about infanticide.

Definitions.

And infanticide however defined and any other homicide while generally agreed to be undesirable may in the circs be more desirable than an alternative.

We are talking people here, folks, not inflexible laws of the universe.

Eat s**t, Inuyasha. I don't have to donate my body to anyone, and certainly not a fetus. And you know what, if I ever get pregnant, I'll abort the thing faster than you can say RU486, and there is nothing in the world you can do about it.

Yes, I'm being rude. Because no amount of reasoned debate gets through to Inuyasha.

When you try to misplace person-hood on stuff that aren't people (ie: No brain developed at all). You are the one that are lowering the bar on what's human, basically "dehumanizing" everybody in the process, specially the pregnant woman.



That's about the reason your opinion is worth so little in here. You seem to have heard in Fox News that PP are scheemers that want to abort everyone, whereas abortions are a low percentage of all that they do. Yes, they happen to provide abortions, but that's because there are ton of pregnant women that just don't want to have children at that time. I know it is painful to think of them as beings entitled to control their own bodies, but unfortunately, they are.




Make abortion illegal once you did genetic screening.

Here's a comparison: You support guns. Guns can be used to rob banks. Should guns be illegal if they can be misused, or should the act of misusing them be illegal? Poorly-thought eugenics can be made illegal and are in fact a whole different topic.




Did you pay attention to JohnyJohn's quote? Do you honestly believe that the woman not only has the duty to go through the pregnancy but also the duty to raise the rapist's kid? Are you nuts?


No, in fact, that is not what I am saying.

I am saying that abortion should be legal REGARDLESS OF RAPE. It should always be legal. So, abortion is not a wrong and thus I am not claiming that "two wrongs make a right" I am claiming "rape should definitely not be the only case in which abortion is allowed".

--

Anyway, you keep avoiding our questions. How many rapist' children of mothers that didn't want them have you adopted so far? Because "it isn't their fault that their father was a rapist", you know, so I guess that your moral highness comes from the fact that you practice what you preach and thus you have adopted plenty of those kids. Specially considering that their existence is in part your responsibility as you are with the group that "reminds" raped women that it is not ok for them to abort, even when the father is a rapist "cuz two wrongs don't make a right".

Actually, one of the reasons that pro-abortion groups try to dehumanize children whom are still in the womb, is because the fact that if the child is a considered a person Roe V. Wade could potentially be tossed out, because it would be considered legalized infanticide.



Yeah why is it that so many pro-Abortion people are against "Born Alive" laws?




The right to own a firearm is covered under the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, you're giving a select group of what you call "cells" special rights. I'm just straight up pro-life, and the thing that pro-abortion advocates fear is the child in the womb being considered a person, because at that point legalized abortion violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and thus Roe v. Wade goes bye bye.




What crime did the child commit though? We aren't saying the woman has to raise the kid, there is something called adoption and there is a backlog of married couples that can't have children that would love to raise an infant. We are saying, that we shouldn't allow people to murder a child for the crimes of one or both of their parents.



So you support legalized murder, but you are against people on death row being executed. Guess you consider a homicidal maniac's life should be protected, but an innocent child in your view is a parasite.




We don't have a shortage of people wanting to adopt though, the government has just set in place so many hurdles that couples are waiting for months and have to pay thousands to hire attorneys.

Again what crime did the child commit? You don't want to answer because you know damn well the child has committed no crimes whatsoever.

Yes, actually we do. Tell me, what state do you live in, Inuyasha? I'll find a child (or a few) just waiting for you to adopt it.

By definition, no "child" can "still be in the womb".

Ad nausseum.





Err, yes , we do.

TAAAAAAAAANGEEEEEEEEENT.

Inuyasha. Did you, Inuyasha at least TRY to adopt children. SPECIFICALLY RAPIST children? Practice what you preach, for god's sake. You know it is "not their fault".

Exactly, why are you not adopting him?



To hell with those cells.

I don't care, and never will care about the actual cells being aborted, they do not get any rights or anything.

When we talk about abortion after genetic screening is not an issue about anything getting "murdered". Because it isn't murder and we have accumulated 1000 pages already of we explaining people like you why it is not murder. What is important in this case is the gene pool and the risk of eugenics. But quite honestly, that risk is so sci-fi at this point that it does not really bother me as much as the notion that women are 'dehumanized' by people like you when you grant non-people rights that triumph over the women' rights.

Women rights are just a way more actual threat right now, so let us worry about eugenics in 20 years, when it happens. Until then, I will consider your attempts to bring the possibility that AS zygs get aborted to the discussion as lousy appeals to emotion and thus irrelevant to the discussion.




I don't fear any "child" in the worm considered a person. Because that will not happen. At least not to me. Something without a brain is not a person. And if the wacko misogynistic pricks in charge of your country's parties manage to make it happen, well, so be it. It is not like your country wasn't dumb already.

Your attempts to dehumanize us all, by giving rights to brainless stuff only so that you can endure your misogynist agenda don't make me 'fearful'.

I'm referring to child in the sense relative to the mother and father.





Actually we don't, it's harder for older children to be adopted because people don't want to deal with emotional baggage. Infants tend to be in high demand, however normally people head out of country to adopt, because they don't want to deal with our train wreck of an adoption process.





Seriously, your argument is b.s., you're saying that cause I currently would not have the environment suitable to raise a child, that it is okay to kill said child. In essense, you're still trying to say infanticide is okay.





I know of a few people that have been trying to adopt that have had to go out of country because our system is a mess. If I find a well paying full time job, maybe I will try to adopt a child, but in all honesty your argument is just plain sick. You are saying that I should be okay with infanticide, because I can't adopt a kid at this time.

Again what crime did the child commit?



If they have brain activity and their DNA is human, then yeah they are a person whether you like it or not.



It's already happening you moron, specifically children with down syndrome are being butchered in the womb in the cause of eugenics. Governor Palin's youngest child, Trig is a situation that is rare, because doctors pressure women into having abortions.



The brain, spinal cord, and heart are the first organs to form after conception you moron. While the brain continues to become more and more complex over time, it doesn't change the fact that is functioning long before the third trimester, well under 2 months after conception to be precise.

Furthermore, I never said women aren't people; I'm saying that the child in the womb is also a person, and abortion is an attempt to kill the child. So this is a matter of near certain death for the child if it is allowed. There is a much better chance that both the woman and the child survive if pregnency is allowed to full-term, where-as an abortion, the intent is to terminate the child's life.

That is one of the reasons why I say that abortion should not be allowed, because while the woman's body is her own, she does not have the right to kill the child (whose body is his/her own and not the woman's). The child has every intention of leaving the woman's womb as soon as they are physically ready to survive being in the outside world.

What state do you live in, Inuyasha? I'll find you a kid to adopt. I'd bet money that I can even find you an infant to adopt, if this were RL.

If Mamma does not get enough extra calcium in her diet the fetus within will leech the calcium right out of her bones.

ruveyn

Inuyahsa's arguments are silly.

He says he does not currently have an environment suitable for raising a child, therefore it is ok that he has not tried to adopt a child in need of a home.

But he says it is not ok for a woman to make the same kind of determination about her own pregnancy - does she have an environment suitable for continuing a pregnancy?

Inuyahsa cannot see past his very closed, narrow existence. He cannot imagine the possibility that there are other people out there who live very different lives than he does.

He cannot imagine, for instance, a woman in an abusive relationship who becomes pregnant and who fears for the safety of her unborn child. A woman who knows full well that her partner will not allow her to put his child up for adoption, and that her partner will abuse her child once born. A woman who cannot leave her relationship. A woman who knows that the best way to protect her child would be to have an abortion.

He cannot imagine that banning abortions will maim and kill women, either through back alley abortions (which, it has been proven, happen when access to proper abortions are limited or eliminated) or through the act of pregnancy and/or childbirth. In fact, he refuses to acknowledge the physical, emotional, and financial impact that pregnancy has on a woman - wether she keeps the child or not. Instead, it is an "inconvenience."

He puts himself, time and time again, in the position of the zef that is being aborted. He sees all arguments against his position as a personal attack against him - as if we are saying he should have been aborted. Everything comes back to aborting people with autism - ie. him.

There is no reasoning with someone so unwilling to look beyond the walls of his tiny existence.

There are tons of rapist children out of your country as well, go find one.




So, you are avoiding to continue with a child's life just because you don't have an environment suitable to raise a child? What does it sound like?

Why is it a pregnant women is not entitled to this privilege of yours to decide when you have an environment suitable to raise a child that is clearly your responsibility? You are the ones reminding women pregnant of rapist children that abortion is 'wrong' and that they should just go with the pregnancy and give them to abortion. Yet you do not really want any businesses whatsoever with adopting the child. Why is it?


No issue then, just go outside the country and find the kid you want to adopt. Nobody said it has to be a local kid,

"Again what crime did the child commit?" Why are you not adopting him/her?



I can with complete certainty say that a 20 weeks fetus does not have brain activity (as it does not really have the necessary sensorial connections to the brain). So, it is not a person, whether you like it or not.


By "After conception" you mean weeks after. So, early abortions should be legal, and most pro-choice people are fine with only making early ones legal.


* It is not a "child" in the womb. It is a zygote, embryo or fetus depending on the stage.
* What you are saying is that even a brainless zygote has more rights than a woman. By transfusing the rights of a woman to this brainless zygote you are effectively "dehumanizing" the woman.

------


If there was such an enormous surplus of parents wanting to adopt young children. Those young children would get adopted before they grew up to become the older children that nobody wants to adopt.