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

Post Reply New Topic

So, now you're trying to smear me because you really have no argument.



That "fetus" as you call it, is another human being, and as stated to in the Declaration of Independence, among our God Given rights is Life. The child is not a piece of property, the child is not an inanimate object.


I've never said I approve of rape, I think it is a horrific thing, that said I also feel that infanticide is a horrible thing. Two wrongs do not make a right and the child is not guilty of the crimes his/her father or mother may have committed. While a young child may not understand the consequences of their actions, that doesn't make them any less of a human being.

It seems more like some people here are viewing abortion as population control.

Human yes, a person no. A fetus or even a new born does not have enough neural connections to be a person.

ruveyn

Newborns actually often have more brain cells than an adult human. So if they are not a person, quite frankly you are not a person either. While a lot of neural connections form after birth, that is to enable rapid learning of language, how to move around in a normal gravity environment, learning to process visual information from their eyes, etc.

again brain cells =/= personhood

a dog can learn thousands of names and their associated items, better than many newborns, should they receive the same standard as humans?

no

So now you're equating babies to dogs, we are not the same species as a canine.

and the point blew past...

completely.

what makes a human unique?

How in the world is that smearing you? WTF are you on about? Contrary to what you may believe, not everything revolves around you, little fellow.


And, in some cultures, is it not the norm that the rape victim would have to marry the rapist?

The fetus needn't be considered either-
you, unambiguously neither property nor an object, have no claim to use my body or its organs beyond that which I consent.
The same is true for the fetus.

How about you go invent an artificial womb then, the child didn't exactly ask to be in the woman's body, and as soon as the child is able to handle the outside world safely, the child will leave that woman's body on their own accord.

The child is not responsible for a crime committed by one of his/her parents. While rape is wrong, infanticide is also wrong and arguably far worse of a crime, if there was a way to prove the person convicted of rape was actually the rapist, I would honestly support the death penalty for such trash. The child is innocent however, and murdering the child is not justice, it's nothing more than taking out one's anger on a defenseless innocent child.

Inuyasha, the minute you magically grow a uterus and get impregnated by your rapist is the minute I take your opinion seriously.

FTR, I don't like abortion.

You may be a woman but that doesn't make you superior to me in some way. We are both human beings, as a fellow human being, I have a right to speak out against the murder of innocent children.

Since we were all infants once, everyone whether they are male or female have a right to participate in this argument, the fact you are a woman does not give you a moral highground. Any one of us could just as easily have been the child that was murdered in the womb instead of being here today.

'I claim an absolute right to be interested in the condition of the human fetus because … well, I used to be one myself'
- Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens and would disagree over the matter of abortion. I do however share his opinion that as an ex-fetus, I have a vested interest in the subject matter. As to the suggest from ValentineWiggin that as this is her body she is entitled to the absolute say over what exactly happens within it. I must disagree, society does not afford one the right to dispose of another. Having read 'Our Bodies, Ourselves', I am stilled shocked at the almost fanatical indignation which which the subject matter can be treated by the proponents of choice. These people who agree with the right to freedom of speech, but balk at the idea that we should be allowed to speak to people before they have an abortion, even if the patient has a veto on the idea. Further the idea that the unborn are have no more meaningful of an existence as a tumor is just silly.

At least Hitchens appreciates this point, his answer is that we must allow it anyway, despite the fact it is wrong. I can respect that view, even if I disagree with it. Someone like ValentineWiggin most likely would not have even acknowledged that trimesters were important thirty years ago; but slowly medical science has pushed those views back. Now it is no longer acceptable to talk about a child in the third trimester as having no rights; something the original 'Our Bodies, Ourselves' and its retinue of militant advocates would have rejected out of hand back then. Now people like LKL just balk at the reality, still attempting to grapple with the idea that a late term abortion is actually wrong and simply promising not to donate too much lobby against the efforts to make it illegal in almost all circumstances; perhaps to those of use who advised restraint in the face of the unknown, a slight glance at the breaks is not enough? As time goes on, viability will occur earlier and earlier and the absolute line will disappear.

Mine is not a position that abortion is simply wrong because it must be human being.... it would be wrong even if it might be human being... the appropriate response to this unknown factor is and always has been restraint.. not a bombastic avocation of one's absolute right to be Caesar's thumb pronouncing life or death. This lack of restraint, is enough to make me prolife just on its own. For me the benefit of the doubt goes to the unborn, any line we draw now will move and eventually we might just realize that designating something human life, with an independent DNA strand might just be worth more to us than a tumor.

Where did I say I was superior?

*sigh*
Admitting that grey areas are grey is not 'grappling with reality.' Late term abortion is sad, yes, mainly imo because the women who have them wanted to have a baby after 9 months. I wouldn't lobby against laws that forbade late-term abortion with rape, health, and fetal abnormality exceptions because that's the state of the law that currently exists in most places, and that's what's allowed for in Roe v. Wade.

I pointed out a lack of a "right to life" on the fetus's part on account of pre-existing autonomical rights.
An appropriate response would be to make the exceptional case against them, not tell me there are no artificial wombs, that infanticide is wrong (naw, really?), and a weeks-old brainless helpless parasite is by virtue of helplessness "innocent". Try to focus.