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

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah. Not giving up all rights over her own body is selfish. How dare she. Never mind her physical health, her emotional health, her trauma from being raped, it's all about the rights of that piece of f*****g gelatine.

To be an ornithologist one has to have at least a basic grounding in general biology. So, yes: we knew that.

^agree w/mechanical girl. Adoption is not the same thing as bearing and raising a rapist's unwanted offspring.
JohnyJohn is so clueless here that it almost looks trollish, but I'm not supposed to say anyone's a troll so I'll leave it at 'clueless' and 'almost.'

There is brain activity around day 48 after conception. Arguing about when consciousness occurs is rather ridiculous because there is not any way to test for consciousness while the child is in the womb. Hell one of my coworkers told me about how doctors thought he was a stillborn until they realized he was breathing, because he actually was asleep.

1) there is neural activity at that stage, not "brain activity." Repeating your claim does not make it more true.
2)Newborns are not 'asleep.' He might have been 'unconscious,' but certainly after having his head forced through a bony passage so small that his skull was deformed (assuming that it was a normal, 'natural' birth), 'asleep' is not the right word to use. 'Unresponsive to painful stimuli' indicates pretty significant alteration in a person's level of consciousness, and is NOT the same as being asleep.

The neural activity is centered in the head, that means it is brain activity genius. The brain, spinal cord, and heart are the earliest organs to begin to form in the brain. The brain takes a long time to develop (due to the complexity), however the fact is that is up and running around day 48, not week 25, like you like to claim. Heck there is limb movement well before week 25, so that kinda shoots your claim full of holes too.

So if the Baby is so human why isn't it entitled to free health insurance?

the earliest interconectivity (a known requirement for consciousness) is observed at week 20.

again what they observed is actually like an UNCONSCIOUS brain.



for the 100th time aimed specifically at you inuyasha

So it just went from week 25, to week 20? Just like that, seriously looks more like you guys don't have a leg to stand on.

again a comment that shows you really dont know what the hell you are reading.

im giving up, i have tried more times than i care to count to get this very argument across to you.

the reason is that even at week 20 what you see is only the emerging signs of an unconsciouss human consciousness, as wriiten.
anything before that is pre (the point of even being unconscious), also the reason why your ridicoulous argument about killing sleeping or unconscious people is utter bs.

You neglect to take into account that the womb doesn't exactly have much in the way of sensory stimuli.

How would you know?

Last I heard, women didn't exactly have flashing lights in their body, nor do they have a total fitness gym. A child is inside a membrane that is there to protect them, so they really don't have much in the way of tactile stimuli usually.

Not that I'm at all interested in yet another abortion debate, but I'd like to point out the total nonsense of this comment. Babies have lots of stimuli in the uterus and this becomes more and more apparent as the baby grows and develops. Movements become reactionary and moms can feel this. Babies react to lights (as seen through ultrasound), sounds, foods that mom eats. They even develop predictable sleep/wake patterns. But all of these reactions are limited to babies that have developed consciousness.

I would contest the 20 week hypothesis though. In my own personal experience, movement seemed reactionary probably closer to around 16 weeks, but that's just an anecdotal hunch. Either way, a fetus at 8 weeks or even 10 weeks, no way.

You are correct in asserting that women do not have flashing lights and total fitness gyms within their wombs.

There is the mother's heartbeat, keeping the fetus company.

The fetus is swaddled in a tight liquid container. The fetus does move around.

If the mother smokes, or is exposed to second hand smoke, it hurts the fetus.

The fetus does have tactile stimuli. If you're lucky, a pregnant woman may permit you to play with her fetus by stroking her belly.

You didn't mention religious beliefs, but neither did mechanicalgirl39, she mentioned personal beliefs. And that belief of yours that cells are magical beings worthy of more rights than actual living women count as personal beliefs and quite silly ones at that.


Yes birth, obviously.


Conception is metric tons more arbitrary than birth. For starters, it is just a cell damnit. There is nothing magical about cells. They don't really 'dream' or anything like that. Meanwhile, at birth the being starts being its own closed system rather than part of the woman's. I am not saying birth is the best line, but it is still a much better line than conception.

Giving arbitrary rights to an early zyg (anything younger than 20 weeks) sounds incredibly silly to me. A piece of meat without even a brain I cannot consider a person that deserves more rigths than the host.



Once the woman is pregnant, there is one person involved, the woman. The rapist can go to heck. The fertilized is way undeveloped to deserve person-hood. The only "illogic" here is in trying to assign magical or holy properties to something as mundane as a limbless, brainless zygote.

There is nothing holy about conception. No spark of god suddenly flashes and creates a person when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Fertilized egg still has a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooong way before it becomes something that I would say makes sense to call a 'child'.