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

Post Reply New Topic

Cute, all the responses to my point.

What was meant was that the child is a parasite upon a woman up until it is delivered. Whilst the word parasite has some rather foul connotations, it is true. It leeches off the mother and doesn't provide anything in return.

Therefore, the woman has all rights to it until it becomes self-aware. And do we know when a child becomes self-aware?

Certainly not before it has a functional cerebrum.

While life is full of suffering, it is also full of joy, laughter, and other feelings, if you seriously feel like your life is nothing but suffering you really need professional help.

Also based on your comments why did you mother keep you?

I did not say that life is not worth living for everyone but banning abortion and increasing the pressure on our natural resources via the increased amount of children harms us. Life is full of happiness and good but it must be overall good in the long run by someone who has a meaningful duty in general for it to be worth living; many people lack a meaningful duty and their potential efforts are wasted because of corruption, emotionally charged rhetoric and lack of support: This does not mean all individuals will become a useful part of society, and those who do not, regardless of their own choices, should either be put into forced labor or killed for those of us who can. This is why I support abortion for population control and furthering women's rights, forced labor for those who have done wrong and can be corrected, euthanasia for those who are not usefull and execution for those who have done wrong and cannot be corrected.

The reason my mother had me, as I assume most mothers had me, is because: I was not defective beyond reasonable doubt; she loves children. And furthermore, until we can create newborns in artificial uteri, we will need to replace our dead with newborns for the human species to carry on, but it is best we do so in a controlled and rational fashion, not one based on instinct, on emotion nor on faulty reasoning.

So in other words you are advocating Eugenics, and forced population control. Looks like the "nutty pro-lifers" are right about pro-abortion people, who'd have thought

Yasha, don't take one person's single post over the course of a single thread which has been argued for months as representative of all pro-choice people, or we get to claim that you're for shooting doctors and nurses, and for firebombing women's health clinics whether they provide abortions or not.

Uh you've compared children to parasites too, as has several other people.

Yes, I have - but I've never advocated eugenics.

Do you believe there are humans (children or not) that have the right to force other humans to use their bodies to the former's survival? Even if you were to argue that fetuses are children, no human being really has rigths that rob other people of their own rights like that.

And on top of that, since fetuses are not children, your ship is sinking.


You are aware that this helps further the stereotype that 'pro-life' people are just resented misogynists, right?






Just replace atheists with pro-choice and christians with pro-life.

I try to keep this thread alive so that the abortion stuff is kept on one thread.

My point was that all these arguments amount to nothing more than semantics, not that I'm so unbiased. I've already made my case here, I just don't feel the need to call the other side misogynistic and use stupid fallacies of composition like "zomg it's just a lump of tissue" ad nauseam. But anyways I guess it is much better to keep all this contained into one thread than to have a bunch of them spamming PPR.

Yes, I am, but only in a carefully planned and thought out fashion, not the pseudoscientific garbage the Nazis came up with. China is rapidly verging on becoming the world's most powerful state yet it has a widely demonized one child policy because they realize that their country cannot support the population they have at a high quality of life. And I am not having children because they would quite likely be severely mentally disabled; this is out of my own choice and is based on my severely mentally disabled siblings.

Besides, it is obvious that a vegetable or one who is profoundly or severely mentally disabled cannot reasonably be expected to have a positive impact on society. And by the way, if I had Alzheimer's when I got old or became a vegetable, I would want to be euthanized so that I would not cause suffering in nor waste the time of others.

Wow, and I think of myself as a pragmatist, Abgal! I'm conflicted about China's one-child policy, mainly because I agree with its utility but disagee with the (necessarily) draconian measures used to enforce it. Also, China has failed to address the social issues around gender, wherein parents whose only child is a girl will be left alone in their old age because women move into the family of their husband when they marry, leading to a significant-enough gender imbalance in children that it is causing some social unrest.

I have thought, though, that if I were ever diagnosed with Alzheimers, I'd move somewhere out in the woods so that when I became confused enough to wander off and get lost, I'd freeze to death before anyone found me. Better than than being stuck in a nursing home for decades, thinking that I'm being assaulted every time I need medical care.

I'm pretty sure that's something she'll have to decide for herself. My opinion is that abortion would be the best option, but why should my opinion matter to her? I'm 100% pro-choice. I believe in affordable abortion on demand, no questions asked. In fact, I already know for a fact if I were to ever become pregnant under any circumstance I would have an abortion because I've already decided that I will not have children. Thankfully, I've never become pregnant and with my husband being sterilized, I hope I never find myself in that position.

It's the Republicans that advocate forced population control by using economic violence against pregnant women.

1. We are talking about a child on the basis of having genetic information from his/her parents. You may be an adult now, but you are still a child of your parents.

2. The child is in the situation involuntarily, it's not like someone came up and stole a woman's kidney. The child is inside the womb, growing and getting ready to be able to survive in the outside world.

3. The option you are advocating is essentially kill a human being for the conveinence of the woman. I'm taking this from the standpoint that neither the woman nor the child dies.

4. As we've seen above, justifying abortion is a way to justify eugenics and population control.






So you think because I believe the child has rights and isn't simply a collection of cells, I'm somehow a misogynist. Thank you for proving my point yet again.






The issue boils down to whether or not the child is a human being, if the child is considered to be a human being, then there is grounds to get Roe v. Wade thrown out. The problem with abortion being acceptable is as we've seen the temptation to use it for eugenics. Let's say they suddenly decide to abort children in the womb because they have signs genetically of being on the spectrum? Under the pro-abortion argument, it is perfectly acceptable to wipe out kids just cause they have Autism cause it isn't really a person. Under the pro-life perspective, it is not acceptable and repugnent to kill the child.



So the fact that most Republicans are pro-life in your mind means that we're for using violence towards pregnant women. Excuse me, but your argument doesn't make any sense and sounds more like a delusional rant.

No, we are not.

Non-sequitur.



If a patient loses a kidney because of an accident. He is acting involuntarily too. There is no such human right that would force anyone to donate a kidney to him. Not even his parents.



If this child got into her womb then that sounds very scary and bizare and creepy. Unless you meant to say fetus instead of child.


The option I am advocating is letting the woman decide what to do with a fetus (ie: not a human being) inside her own body.


Since you are a man, you have the privilege of being able to decide what to do with your own body for your own convenience. You spew the word 'convenience' as if it was a bad thing. No government should force people to go through inconvenience if there is no good reason for it. So even if pregnancy was just an inconvenience your proposal sounds like authoritarianism. Since we are trying very hard not to be misogynistic, the fact that the person going through inconvenience is a woman or not should not matter to us.

And once again you are pretending like we didn't have this conversation before. Risk of death is not just an inconvenience. Feeling Nausea over 9 months is not just an inconvenience. Being unable to work for months is not a mere inconvenience.


Slippery slope.


You aware that I did not call you a misogynist, right. I just mentioned that when you show such a bittersweet resentment towards feminism, you sound like one, so you probably would like to stop sounding like one. And my tip was not because you like insisting on calling the fetus a child, but because of the absurd generalization you made about feminazis being dangerous or whatever you said.

Ad nauseum It is not a child.



NO... ONE... CARES.

Slippery slope.






Forcing women to use their bodies the way you like through the strong arm of law does sound a little like violence.

Keep on calling yourself pro-life.