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

Post Reply New Topic

Weren't we talking about ramen?

Would you also advocate the peaceful law abiding citizens were bullet proof vests on the grounds that someone might shoot them?

ruveyn

Women don't abort the offspring of rapists due to pressure because it's 'dishonorable,' especially given that they often don't even tell friends and family that they've been raped, much less that they're pregnant. They abort these zefs because they don't want to be providing life support to a rapist's offspring for 9 months, and then go thorough hours to days of excruciating pain for same said zef.

Fixed it for you

lol

I knew we were talking about ramen. O.o Maybe I confused this thread with another...

Hence the problem. If, in regard to ruveyn, you have a reason to fear a high likelihood of getting shot, why NOT wear a bulletproof vest?

If there is a high likelihood that a girl or woman may get raped and get pregnant, why not have measures in place that would prevent pregnancy? I'm not saying "blame the victim" for rape, but the likelihood of rape itself can be prevented--for example, avoiding areas where rape and other sexual crimes are rampant, not sending the wrong message by wearing provocative or suggestive clothing, consuming excessive drugs/alcohol that puts the woman at risk of losing control of a situation, and so on. I'm not saying it's the victim's fault or that the victim is ever asking to be raped. I'm just saying one can't be too careful.

We aren't talking about just rape, though, but associated pregnancy. A young person might be more likely to be tricked into having sex with someone or not even fully understand what they're doing. LKL, you mention that women destroy these babies because they don't want to be providing life support to a rapist's offspring. You also mentioned that rape often goes unreported. So if parents and authorities cannot reliably gather information on who is getting raped and who the perpetrators are, does it not make sense to go ahead and make sure a girl cannot get pregnant, even if you can't completely prevent rape?

Why, then, would you want to put a girl through both the pain of being raped and THEN choosing between abortion/delivery? Bad enough one has to deal with rape. At the very least that should be the only pain she has to deal with.

I also think that abortion in the case of rape is too open for abuse. I'd honestly be more accepting of abortion for rape victims if we have the assurance that rape victims are reporting the crimes and that rapists are being punished. Sure, you're killing a baby. But it's the rapist that caused the pregnancy and thus he is guilty of murder--NOT the girl/woman or the abortionist. I might have mentioned in the past I think the rapist should be handled the same way as a murderer.

Honestly, as I've mentioned before, I have conflicting feelings regarding abortion. The self-defense argument is very shaky given modern medicine, and it is possible to avoid pregnancy if one knows she cannot bring a baby to term and both she and the baby possibly survive. I understand "accidents" happen and there are exceptions to every rule. I can see a few circumstances in which unborn baby-killing is justified. What I cannot see is the justification for the casual attitudes of some towards abortion and abortion "rights."

One of the leading causes of fatalities resulting from pregnancies probably had to do with infection back in the Middle Ages...

Anyways, the question comes back to the child though.

Say your mother robbed a bank, are you responsible for a crime your mother committed?

The child is not guilty of any crime, just because one of their parents is guilty of something, does not make the child guilty.

No, it doesn't because there is no child involved.

Every fetus is a child, so there is a child involved.

I don't even know why I bothered replying, I've read every post in this thread and know this has been repeated ad nauseam. It just baffles me how people like you can place more value on a potential person than an existing one.

Someone who might cause accidental death isn't necessarily guilty of a premeditated crime. However, if someone were to protect themselves, even preemptively, from those actions, that person would be said to be acting in the interest of preserving his or her own life. That hardly counts as murder. But it does mean that one's actions are justified in taking a life when NO OTHER CHOICE EXISTS. Notice the emphasis here. Your choices are kill someone or die. Now, if options exist that preserve the life of the mother, then killing the child is unjustified.

Rape potentially triggers the creation of a new and unwanted living human being. I would say that abortion is merciful given the circumstances. And I would also say the blood guilt is on the rapist, not the mother. This would seem to be consistent with a Biblical worldview, and I know you and I both share a Biblical worldview. We just happen to disagree on this one matter.

As to what the mother actually DOES, though, is another matter. I think it's more NOBLE to endure the pregnancy and have the child--after all, there is no guarantee that the pregnancy and delivery will necessarily threaten or destroy the life of the mother.

It is clearly NOT the fault of the child, and the child does not DESERVE to suffer the consequences of its conception if that results in abortion. On this we agree, and Biblically it is wrong to punish a child for the actions of the parent(s). HOWEVER, one must not that a Biblical principle is that future generations do end up paying for the evils of their parents, whether those actions directly cause them harm or whether they follow the same patterns of behavior of their parents. That is also why I think a rape victim is absolved of any fault since the rapist determined the circumstances of conception through evil actions. Hence I believe the rapist deserves no mercy. If the victim can somehow forgive him, he should be allowed (forced) to reconcile with her and be an active part of supporting her and raising the child. If the child is aborted, then he is guilty of murder and should IN LIKE MANNER be put to death.

Sorry if that's overly harsh, but that's the way I feel about it. I realize, too, that it's unrealistic. I just think if we took this kind of thing more seriously, it would serve to sharply deter the crime. It's just a matter of getting more people to be accepting of it.

Actually what I found was that somewhere between 1970 and now, someone decided to arbitrarily say that a fetus is not a child, regardless of the fact that a fetus is quite obviously a child.

Here is a good counter argument, Lecks would like to have never been born? That is essentially what you are advocating about the kids, that they apparently don't deserve in your mind to live.

What makes it that you deserved to live and they did not?

Maybe the only reason you are alive is cause your parents didn't know you would have autism, have you ever stopped and considered that?

A problem I've noticed with a lot of people on the spectrum is that people tend to get stuck and not consider all angles of this.


What many people here are doing are simply mindlessly screaming the woman has the right to choose, it is her body, blah blah blah. In order to fit that mindset you disregard the fact you are talking about killing another human being by stabbing them in the head and injecting poison into their brains. You claim they are somehow not human, excuse me but you would be screaming about animal cruelity if someone did that to a dog or a cat. So you're saying the child is worth less than a dog or a cat, and you wonder why I'm so disgusted with people here?


Got news for you people I've actually looked at both sides of the issue, I understand the fact rape is a traumatic experience, I know women have rights, and when a woman has been raped their rights have been violated. However, unlike many people here, I also understand that the child has rights, that the child is not responsible for the rape, and that deliberately ending the child's life is a violation of the child's rights. You don't have justice by inflicting harm on another innocent person so the first person harmed may feel better.

Unlike most people here I acknowledge both the woman and the child are human beings with all the rights that come with being human beings as endowed by our creator.

I'm looking at this as being of two options.

Option 1: The Woman gets to have the child killed, which is depriving that child of their right to exist.

Option 2: The Woman is stuck with carrying the child to term during which the woman is stuck with having the child in her body for about 9 monthes.

Let's say the average lifespan of a human is 80 years.

9 months of the woman's life out of 80 years vs. the 80 years the child would live

Sorry but no matter how you slice it, the lesser of the two evils is the woman having to carry the kid to term.

or our understanding was vastly improved in those years, making the definitions of old worth nothing with regards to the modern world?

I had counterpoints for Inuyasha, but it wouldn't matter. Nothing I say will change his mind. We can't even come to an agreement on what constitutes a child.

I'm going back to lurking now.

What the Religious Right advocates is abortion by starvation. If a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant the Religious right advocates that she should be cut off from all welfare which includes food stamps.

What is with the left and their tendency for hysteria?