• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Rape is just a method of conception.

cpwill said:
So you are saying that there are people who view infanticide as just another way to save on living expenses?
Click to expand...

Hah - commeth from the Conservative Party who admonishes personal wealth and lifelong success - and very much so does not admonish large poor families.

Spare me . . . it's a vital concern = supporting yourself. Being able to support your family -- to the Conservative Ilk . . . don't claim it's not. It's the cornerstone of the Conservative values system!

I'm sure you could give me 10 positive reasons why you SHOULD be self sufficient and NOT have kids you cannot support.

Can you give me 10 positive reasons why you should NOT be self sufficient and STILL have kids you cannot support? Don't think so - but it would be entertaining for you to try.
 
Dittohead not! said:
at least according to our VP hopeful:



I don't think Ryans' boss holds the same opinion.

At least now when speaking to a general audience. If he's speaking to adamant pro lifers, who knows?
Click to expand...

Technically Romney isn't Ryan's "boss". ...Well maybe as an employee of the campaign.

I grew up in a place where it was as common as clockwork for the Governor and the Lt. Governor to get mad at each other usually 2 years into the 4 year term. Although the Lt Gov was asked to be the Governor's running mate on the same ticket, they were BOTH elected by the people directly. The Governor cannot fire the Lt. Governor once the election is over. Its was stand up comedy seeing each of the fight it out in the media over ever issue. Then at the election time, the Lt. Governor would run against the Governor and the Governor would pick a new running mate. Constitutionally the Lt. Governor could not be forced to resign any more than the Governor. Until the next inauguration they both were incumbents in their shared administration.

Likewise, if Romney is elected Ryan will have just as much constitutional authority to be his own man within the administration as Romney. Unlike a cabinet officer, Ryan would have been elected to his position and really answers only to Congress and the courts.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Hah - commeth from the Conservative Party who admonishes personal wealth and lifelong success - and very much so does not admonish large poor families.

Spare me . . . it's a vital concern = supporting yourself. Being able to support your family -- to the Conservative Ilk . . . don't claim it's not. It's the cornerstone of the Conservative values system!

I'm sure you could give me 10 positive reasons why you SHOULD be self sufficient and NOT have kids you cannot support.

Can you give me 10 positive reasons why you should NOT be self sufficient and STILL have kids you cannot support? Don't think so - but it would be entertaining for you to try.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. I was deliberately posting the position in an inflammatory way that was not how pro-choicers viewed the issue in order to demonstrate the torturing of logic that the OP had engaged in.
 
tererun said:
Your point relies on conception being automatically a good thing. It is not.
Click to expand...

How does his point mean conception is automatically a good thing? All he said was that the child was conceived.
 
tererun said:
Your point relies on conception being automatically a good thing. It is not.
Click to expand...

No, it just relies upon the products of conception automatically deserving legal protection. Which is kinda the core premise of the pro-life movement. If you don't believe this, you are not pro-life.
 
Taylor said:
Thread title has nothing to do with what was actually said... go figure.
Click to expand...

It is directly implied, just not said word for word cause that'll lose his boss more votes.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
No, it just relies upon the products of conception automatically deserving legal protection. Which is kinda the core premise of the pro-life movement. If you don't believe this, you are not pro-life.
Click to expand...

I'm pro choice not because I think abortions are naturally a good thing either. I'm pro choice because I think it's the logical approach and that it's better for our society as a whole to not have every baby conceived. I trust our mothers and doctors to make the right decision. Imagine a High School girl being pregnant or a family which does not have the financial means to support a child. Having the baby may do more harm than good. The majority also agrees it should be restricted to the first trimester to avoid cruelty and maximize safety. Other abortions should only be made in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. The baby only has full rights as a citizen once they are born.

Unfortunately we can't make laws based on what we think is right and wrong but we have to make laws based on what works best.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
He's not wrong. The fetus isn't any less of a human being for having been conceived via a violent crime and a traumatic experience, and if your pro-life stance is genuinely motivated by concern for the fetus you can't just ignore those fetuses that were conceived in that fashion-- you might be able to make an exception for pragmatic reasons, but you can't just ignore it.
Click to expand...

I agree, and this is actually something I've always found to be really confusing and contradictory about the position of most anti-choice people.

If the tantamount issue is the ZEF, then why does it matter how it was conceived? If it's a person, then how is it any less of a person for having been conceived through rape? If you think abortion is murder, how is it any less murderous to abort a ZEF conceived by rape? The ZEF didn't commit the rape, so what difference does it make?

Either the ZEF is a person and abortion is murder, or it isn't. I don't really understand the rape exception if you hold the view that ZEF's are people and abortion is murder. It's like saying that if someone assaults you, you can go kill their child. In what world does that make sense?

Personally, I think it's accidental admission of the fact that ZEF's aren't people, and don't deserve the same consideration as the woman. I can't think of any other reason they'd make an exception for rape.

I have to admit I have marginally more respect for Ryan for at least being ethically consistent, even if I think what he espouses is a pretty shoddy excuse for ethics. I merely find him detestable, as opposed to both detestable and mindless.
 
Last edited:
Rape is a method of conception. That's an undeniable fact.

It's still extremely wrong and illegal, though. Rapists should be VERY harshly punished.
 
Voltaire X said:
Rape is a method of conception. That's an undeniable fact.

It's still extremely wrong and illegal, though. Rapists should be VERY harshly punished.
Click to expand...

All true.

The question is, should the rapist's victim also be punished by being forced to give birth to the results of rape, or should she have a choice in the matter?

It you're really pro life, as Victyr says above, and believe that life begins at conception, then it follows that your opinion is that the fetus is also an innocent victim and must have his/her life preserved.

But, very few people are really "pro life" despite how they describe themselves. They really want to let the government, not the individual, make the decision. A pro lifer wouldn't kill a toddler who was the result of rape, so he would see terminating a pregnancy for the same reason as no different.
 
shiang said:
I'm pro choice not because I think abortions are naturally a good thing either. I'm pro choice because I think it's the logical approach and that it's better for our society as a whole to not have every baby conceived. I trust our mothers and doctors to make the right decision. Imagine a High School girl being pregnant or a family which does not have the financial means to support a child. Having the baby may do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir there, boss. I'm pro-choice, on the fringe end of the issue. I'm just advocating for people taking a little bit of extra effort to understand the people on the other side of the argument-- and thus to argue their cases honestly, without all the ridiculous rhetorical distortion on display here in this thread.

shiang said:
Unfortunately we can't make laws based on what we think is right and wrong but we have to make laws based on what works best.
Click to expand...

This is a fallacy. We cannot make laws based on what works best until we agree on what's right and wrong-- because we cannot define 'best' without defining 'good' first. We must make laws according to our understanding of right and wrong. All laws are fundamentally expressions of morality.
 
Dittohead not! said:
All true.

The question is, should the rapist's victim also be punished by being forced to give birth to the results of rape, or should she have a choice in the matter?

It you're really pro life, as Victyr says above, and believe that life begins at conception, then it follows that your opinion is that the fetus is also an innocent victim and must have his/her life preserved.

But, very few people are really "pro life" despite how they describe themselves. They really want to let the government, not the individual, make the decision. A pro lifer wouldn't kill a toddler who was the result of rape, so he would see terminating a pregnancy for the same reason as no different.
Click to expand...

That is correct.
 
Dittohead not! said:
at least according to our VP hopeful:



I don't think Ryans' boss holds the same opinion.

At least now when speaking to a general audience. If he's speaking to adamant pro lifers, who knows?
Click to expand...

well technically its true, and to deny women who want to abort in this case and forcing them not to would be raping them a second time :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom