• 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!

Would you support a 'rape exception' to a government ban on elective abortions?

Would you support a 'rape exception' to a government ban on elective abortions?

  • No - Not under any circumstances ever

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • No - Not under the circumstances given (please explain)

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • Yes - If the law required the rape to be reported immediately

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • Yes - As long as the rape is reported in a timely manner

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 26.5%
  • Total voters
    34
megaprogman said:
I think you are misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with working. However that person being restricted in their possibilities due to their life circumstances and being forced, because of those circumstances, to life an unhappy life is worse than death.

This goes back to environment. If a person was otherwise aborted, but instead was forced to live in a hostile environment where the mother either does not want the child or cannot care for the child to the point where that child's options are limited than we are harming that child.
Click to expand...

Forced to live, but still living. Better than death. Why do so many poor people not kill themselves? You think they ain't got the means? No, it's because that even if their life sucks and is hard; it's still life. It's better than the alternative.

megaprogman said:
My only point is if abortion was illegal than we now have a responsibility to nurture those children and give them a real chance at happiness. And yes, that falls on the great society if the mother is unfit for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

This just seems to be the standard sort of rallying against biology thing. If I had no hand in a woman being pregnant, I hold no responsibility to the child. The only "responsibility" society has is to ensure the rights and liberties of the individual; everything else is left to the individual. Sure, we can work to restore free market capitalism, to restore economic mobility, to allow fair and open participation in the system. But that's about it.
 
Ikari said:
You're in the same crowd as megaprogman, and it's an entirely irrational outlook. Basically you're equating living in a less than ideal home as being equivalent to death. Even foster care is better than death.
Click to expand...

I think death is more a neutral state than a 'good' or 'bad' one. So I don't really think anyone can honestly say that anything is really 'better than death'. There's existence and non-existence. Non-existence is pretty neutral.
 
Ikari said:
You're in the same crowd as megaprogman, and it's an entirely irrational outlook. Basically you're equating living in a less than ideal home as being equivalent to death. Even foster care is better than death.
Click to expand...

No. I'm suggesting there is simply no way to ensure that a woman will bring a healthy pregnancy to term if she doesn't want it...And maybe we should stop trying to force it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
No. I'm suggesting there is simply no way to ensure that a woman will bring a healthy pregnancy to term if she doesn't want it...And maybe we should stop trying to force it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is proper logic. Because people are going to continually try to do all sorts of things, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that we should allow the behavior.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think that is proper logic. Because people are going to continually try to do all sorts of things, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that we should allow the behavior.
Click to expand...

So, how far are you willing to allow the government to go to force a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term without endangering the fetus?

As a libertarian, I would imagine...not very far.
 
Ikari said:
Forced to live, but still living. Better than death. Why do so many poor people not kill themselves? You think they ain't got the means? No, it's because that even if their life sucks and is hard; it's still life. It's better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't understand your position at all and all I can say is that those people have found something to life for. When I was in that position, I know I had to.

Ikari said:
This just seems to be the standard sort of rallying against biology thing. If I had no hand in a woman being pregnant, I hold no responsibility to the child. The only "responsibility" society has is to ensure the rights and liberties of the individual; everything else is left to the individual. Sure, we can work to restore free market capitalism, to restore economic mobility, to allow fair and open participation in the system. But that's about it.
Click to expand...

To me this is an immoral position.

As a side note: I was subjected to some pretty awful stuff growing up and I find myself continually flashing on those memories as I post. Perhaps this is linked to my position on this question and is the course of of my particular outlook. I am not sure.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
This just seems to be the standard sort of rallying against biology thing. If I had no hand in a woman being pregnant, I hold no responsibility to the child.
Click to expand...

Except to force her to give birth to it...?
 
Part of me has started to believe that maybe it is better to allow the species to self-select NOT to carry out pregnancies. Genetically speaking, isn't this a form of self-selected "thinning the herd"?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Except to force her to give birth to it...?
Click to expand...

Expecting her to respect it's rights is not tantamount to forcing her to do anything.

When (and if) she consented to have intercourse, she placed the burden on herself (as did the father.)
 
Chuz Life said:
I agree.

The child is not (sexually) raping the woman in this example. But it is using her body against her will,... placing her life, health and well being in danger,... and it's doing so as a result of no fault of either the woman's nor the child's actions.
Click to expand...

Many abortionist argue that is what the child(although abortionist use "fetus" or some other term to dehumanize the child) is doing that regardless if the mother engaged in sex for pleasure or was raped.
That's not the case in an act of consentual sex that results in a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Many abortionist argue that consensual sex is not a consent for pregnancy.

As far as the expectation that the pregnancy is not going to "end the mother's life?"

Her right to defend herself is not predicated on the fact or certainty of death. She has a right to protect herself from being "seized" by another in any way,.... UNLESS she consented.
Once she consents,.. she waves her rights to expel them (within reason) and unless they violate her rights in another way,... She has to live with the consequence of the choice she made.
Click to expand...


So the baby is now a parasite?(abortionist usually compare an unborn child to a parasite) That baby is now assaulting the woman? The baby is innocent, the baby did not rape the mother nor is the baby going to cause her to die.So there is no reason or justification for taking the life of an innocent human being. The fact that child is a product of rape is irrelevant.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So, how far are you willing to allow the government to go to force a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term without endangering the fetus?

As a libertarian, I would imagine...not very far.
Click to expand...

As a libertarian, I believe heavily in fundamental and natural rights. As such the unborn child's right to life must be considered as well.
 
megaprogman said:
Honestly, I don't understand your position at all and all I can say is that those people have found something to life for. When I was in that position, I know I had to.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You're sitting here deeming people's lives no better than death. Yet these people find things to live for. They keep going and keep trying. So obviously a hard life is not equivalent to death as you keep trying to impost.

megaprogman said:
To me this is an immoral position.

As a side note: I was subjected to some pretty awful stuff growing up and I find myself continually flashing on those memories as I post. Perhaps this is linked to my position on this question and is the course of of my particular outlook. I am not sure.
Click to expand...

It's not an immoral position. An immoral position is deeming a man's life no better than death and excusing his execution. It's not immoral to have one work and reap the benefits and rewards of their sweat. And to request that they don't steal from me to make their lives better when things don't work out well enough.
 
Chuz Life said:
Expecting her to respect it's rights is not tantamount to forcing her to do anything.

When (and if) she consented to have intercourse, she placed the burden on herself (as did the father.)
Click to expand...

Wrong. YOu're forcing her to commit to 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth. If you're willing to do that, what else are you willing to force her to do? Are you going to control her diet to ensure the child is healthy? Are you going to force feed her? Are you going to monitor her alcohol intake? Are you going to test her urine for illegal drugs? If that child has rights equivalent to the mother's, does the child have the right to not be mistreated in the womb?

That is the natural extension of your argument, and I'm not sure exactly how you plan to enforce it.
 
Ikari said:
As a libertarian, I believe heavily in fundamental and natural rights. As such the unborn child's right to life must be considered as well.
Click to expand...

So, how far are you willing to extend that child's natural rights?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So, how far are you willing to extend that child's natural rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not extending any natural rights, I'm merely recognizing them. This is a natural consequence of recognizing human life and natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not extending any natural rights, I'm merely recognizing them. This is a natural consequence of recognizing human life and natural rights.
Click to expand...

So, by recognizing them, are you willing to enter into policing the woman's pregnancy to ensure that her actions do not endanger the fetus?
 
When (and if) she consented to have intercourse, she placed the burden on herself (as did the father.)
Click to expand...

But she can withdraw her consent to be pregnant at any time. Forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is not consent.

I find it interesting that your statement above closely parallels the rapists’ argument that “she wanted it” or “if she didn’t want to have sex she shouldn’t have come into my room and made out with me.”

How is forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will much different from raping her?
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. You're sitting here deeming people's lives no better than death. Yet these people find things to live for. They keep going and keep trying. So obviously a hard life is not equivalent to death as you keep trying to impost.
Click to expand...

And if their hope for better things does not come to fruition that my position on it is validated.

Ikari said:
It's not an immoral position. An immoral position is deeming a man's life no better than death and excusing his execution. It's not immoral to have one work and reap the benefits and rewards of their sweat. And to request that they don't steal from me to make their lives better when things don't work out well enough.
Click to expand...

I disagree with almost every assumption you make as the basis of that previous statement. Human nature by being in society necessarily interacts with that society, for better or worse. The results of those interactions are partially due to the person's actions and partially due to the actions of that society so I believe that each bears a responsibility due to those actions and their rewards. To limit yourself and only look at one aspect of life will lead you to conclusions that are one sided (such as the idea that a person is wholly responsible for their destiny). A person's sweat and effort is not entirely theirs unless they live alone and away from the rest of society.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
How is forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will much different from raping her?
Click to expand...

She wanted it.

Basically, it is using her body against her will.

Look, I get it. Abortion is bad. I could not do it, when faced with the choice. But, if a woman would rather kill her fetus rather than bring it into the world, how far are you willing to go to force her to do what you want her to do?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So, by recognizing them, are you willing to enter into policing the woman's pregnancy to ensure that her actions do not endanger the fetus?
Click to expand...

It's a very good question in fact. If we were to be in a place such as the hypothetical posed by the OP; how far would something like libertarian philosophy go in terms of pregnancy. The crux of many libertarian arguments is that if you are not directly infringing upon the rights of others, if you're not hurting others, then you should be free to do as you like. However, there are certainly actions which can be taken while pregnant, like smoking, drinking, drug abuse, which will cause that harm. And some of it isn't just a little hurt here or there, but major development issues. These acts would certainly infringe then upon the rights of the unborn child and perhaps some regulation would be necessary. Such as no smoking crack, no drinking excessive alcohol, etc. while pregnant.
 
Ikari said:
It's a very good question in fact. If we were to be in a place such as the hypothetical posed by the OP; how far would something like libertarian philosophy go in terms of pregnancy. The crux of many libertarian arguments is that if you are not directly infringing upon the rights of others, if you're not hurting others, then you should be free to do as you like. However, there are certainly actions which can be taken while pregnant, like smoking, drinking, drug abuse, which will cause that harm. And some of it isn't just a little hurt here or there, but major development issues. These acts would certainly infringe then upon the rights of the unborn child and perhaps some regulation would be necessary. Such as no smoking crack, no drinking excessive alcohol, etc. while pregnant.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Women can do significant harm in utero through certain acts.

So, abortion becomes illegal. Do we set up a government agency to monitor pregnant women?

See, I'm thinking that allowing women to self-select abortion during the first trimester is the least intrusive option. A child is not fully developed at 12 weeks, no more so than a mouse. We only treat it differently because it has human genes. But, developmentally speaking, what is the difference between euthanizing an unwanted stray and terminating a fetus?

There is very little difference, biologically/scientifically speaking. When I miscarried, I caught the fetus in my hand. It was the size of my thumb.

Is that a human being?
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
And if their hope for better things does not come to fruition that my position on it is validated.
Click to expand...

No it's not. They've found something to live for, that something doesn't have to hinge upon better things coming. It may be hinged on family, it may be hinged on friends, it may be hinged on job, etc. Just because their life doesn't get better doesn't mean that they won't find worth in life. If what you said was true, there would be far more suicides than we have.

misterman said:
I disagree with almost every assumption you make as the basis of that previous statement. Human nature by being in society necessarily interacts with that society, for better or worse. The results of those interactions are partially due to the person's actions and partially due to the actions of that society so I believe that each bears a responsibility due to those actions and their rewards. To limit yourself and only look at one aspect of life will lead you to conclusions that are one sided (such as the idea that a person is wholly responsible for their destiny). A person's sweat and effort is not entirely theirs unless they live alone and away from the rest of society.
Click to expand...

Society doesn't mean that a man is not entitled to the sweat of his brow. We interact, which is why we've come to understand rights and why we construct government to protect it. But that doesn't mean that you all of a sudden do not get to reap the rewards of your labor. Your labor is still your labor, even in a society. And you are entitled compensation for your labor and to live by it.
 
The poll should also include an 'exception' which allows abortion in medical cases where the mother's life is at risk.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
So, abortion becomes illegal. Do we set up a government agency to monitor pregnant women?

See, I'm thinking that allowing women to self-select abortion during the first trimester is the least intrusive option. A child is not fully developed at 12 weeks, no more so than a mouse. We only treat it differently because it has human genes. But, developmentally speaking, what is the difference between euthanizing an unwanted stray and terminating a fetus?

There is very little difference, biologically/scientifically speaking. When I miscarried, I caught the fetus in my hand. It was the size of my thumb.

Is that a human being?
Click to expand...

I don't think monitoring is necessary, less there is real reason to believe that the woman may act in manners which would endanger the child and that can be proven in a court of law in order to obtain a warrant.

But of course it's a human being. Human is human.
 
Politics101 said:
The poll should also include an 'exception' which allows abortion in medical cases where the mother's life is at risk.
Click to expand...

This isn't the inclusive abortion debate. This was a specific scenario and hypothetical consideration. What you're saying here isn't part of the consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom