• 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!

Republicans justification for denying a rape victim an abortion

Did you not write this?
I simply pointed out that by imposing capital punishment on rapists, it would mean that more rapists would be inclined to murder their victims, eliminating the testimony of the only eyewitness to their other crime.

Is there any proof of this, or is it just speculation?

I am very much in favour of the d/p for rapists, child molesters and torturers of people and animals.
 
Put yourself in a hypothetical frame of mind where you do consider a foetus to be a human child, and examine the issue from this perspective.

You'd rightly conclude that permitting abortion in cases of rape doesn't make sense. It would be no different from giving an mother leave to shoot her two-year old son in the head if his father was a rapist and she concluded after two years raising him that she couldn't handle another sixteen. That is, neither the boy's parentage nor the mother's unwillingness/inability to care for him factors into whether it's lawful for her to kill him. All that matters is whether or not he's a soulful human being.

Obviously I won't convince you here that the foetus in the womb is a soulful human being, but I trust that you can see why someone who believes so with conviction doesn't except rape from abortion bans.


See my counterargument to Casper. If "knowledge that your father was a rapist" isn't good enough reason to shoot a toddler in the back of the head two years after he's born, it isn't good enough reason to kill him before he's born.


I acknowledged in a recent discussion that anti-abortion laws don't reduce the number of abortions and can hinder efforts to reduce it in other ways. I don't expect this recent spate of bans will fare any better.

It's like gun control. If significant demand is there, beyond a certain critical mass, you'll exhaust yourself futilely trying to stamp it out.

Here I'm arguing from a moral perspective.

Put yourself in a woman's body - then maybe you've got something to talk about. You're not arguing from a moral perspective - just a man's.
 
Is there any proof of this, or is it just speculation?

I am very much in favour of the d/p for rapists, child molesters and torturers of people and animals.

It's just common sense. If a rapist faces the same penalty for rape as murder, what incentive is there to let his victim live? Killing his victim eliminates the witness's identifying him and testifying against him.
 
Hi COTO. Haven't read the entire thread, but I have a question for you. If it was your call to make, would you force every woman who became impregnated ( with the possible exception of certain serious illness or death to the mother ) to carry to term ? If YES, what would the penalty be for any women that was found to have her pregnancy terminated by her own accord ? If NO, disregard. It's a moot point...thanks in advance.
"If it was my call to make" in today's society, the only thing I'd ban is advertising and promotion of abortion as "healthcare". Clinics would be able to operate legally for the same reason many countries are decriminalizing drug abuse: people generally disregard the bans, and prohibition can make it more difficult to combat the problem in other ways.

If I was building a society from the ground up, abortion under all circumstances except to save the life of the mother would be illegal.

Now please do not try to turn this into "you are sympathetic to rapists." I assure you I am not. I simply prioritize the needs of the victim over the punishment. I think it is more important that the victim survive than the rapist be 'sufficiently' punished.
Fine. Understood. Add this to the list of reasons why Republicans aren't pushing for tougher rape sentences.

WOW aren't you glad you're not a woman. Easy to judge when you're not the one that has to deal. You don't feel squat for the woman. You want to try that bs about adoption again??
Your link is dead, and I don't have a Facebook account to access Facebook content anyway.

So, why aren't they trying to get sentences increased?
Rape has always been a legal headache because it lies at the narrow intersection of crimes that are extremely serious and crimes that hinge on the presence of consent. Establishing whether or not consent existed at the time of a rape is an infamous legal challenge. There usually aren't any witnesses besides the victim and the rapist. The only things that might conclusively point to the guilt of the accused are: i) evidence of great physical violence/resistance, which isn't present if a victim elects not to resist or is incapacitated; and ii) a multitude of character testimonials to establish that the victim is chaste (i.e. morally committed to not having sex or committed to only having sex with his/her spouse) and would under no circumstances consent to having sex with the accused, which is a rarity circa 2019.

Hence in most rape cases, the only thing to go on is the testimony of the victim and whatever scraps of circumstantial evidence the prosecutor can scrape together to try to prove mens rea. As a result, very few cases go to trial, very few trials lead to convictions, and judges/lawmakers tend to hand down lenient sentences. Our society places a great emphasis on shielding the innocent at the expense of exculpating the guilty.

Put yourself in a woman's body - then maybe you've got something to talk about. You're not arguing from a moral perspective - just a man's.
Males are aborted just as often as females. I'm arguing from their perspective.
 
"If it was my call to make" in today's society, the only thing I'd ban is advertising and promotion of abortion as "healthcare". Clinics would be able to operate legally for the same reason many countries are decriminalizing drug abuse: people generally disregard the bans, and prohibition can make it more difficult to combat the problem in other ways.

If I was building a society from the ground up, abortion under all circumstances except to save the life of the mother would be illegal.


Fine. Understood. Add this to the list of reasons why Republicans aren't pushing for tougher rape sentences.


Your link is dead, and I don't have a Facebook account to access Facebook content anyway.


Rape has always been a legal headache because it lies at the narrow intersection of crimes that are extremely serious and crimes that hinge on the presence of consent. Establishing whether or not consent existed at the time of a rape is an infamous legal challenge. There usually aren't any witnesses besides the victim and the rapist. The only things that might conclusively point to the guilt of the accused are: i) evidence of great physical violence/resistance, which isn't present if a victim elects not to resist or is incapacitated; and ii) a multitude of character testimonials to establish that the victim is chaste (i.e. morally committed to not having sex or committed to only having sex with his/her spouse) and would under no circumstances consent to having sex with the accused, which is a rarity circa 2019.

Hence in most rape cases, the only thing to go on is the testimony of the victim and whatever scraps of circumstantial evidence the prosecutor can scrape together to try to prove mens rea. As a result, very few cases go to trial, very few trials lead to convictions, and judges/lawmakers tend to hand down lenient sentences. Our society places a great emphasis on shielding the innocent at the expense of exculpating the guilty.


Males are aborted just as often as females. I'm arguing from their perspective.

Fair answer...Follow up question (s): Since you would make abortion illegal ( with exception of mother's health issues ), what would you make the penalty be for any women who received an abortion, or otherwise terminated her pregnancy ? and what would be your plan to enforce your decision to outlaw abortions ?
 
It's just common sense. If a rapist faces the same penalty for rape as murder, what incentive is there to let his victim live? Killing his victim eliminates the witness's identifying him and testifying against him.

So, you don't have any proof. Got it.
 
So, you don't have any proof. Got it.

Since DP is not on the table for rape in most jurisdictions, no, we have no "proof". Perhaps you are willing to conduct an experiment and make DP mandatory for all convicted of rape. Then we could allow that to stand for a few decades and see if more or less dead rape victims show up. Then we would have the proof you require (or not), apparently lacking common sense.

Do you deny the premise? Are you of the opinion that rapists will have no incentive to kill the only witness to their crime?
 
If I was building a society from the ground up, abortion under all circumstances except to save the life of the mother would be illegal.




Rape has always been a legal headache because it lies at the narrow intersection of crimes that are extremely serious and crimes that hinge on the presence of consent. Establishing whether or not consent existed at the time of a rape is an infamous legal challenge. There usually aren't any witnesses besides the victim and the rapist. The only things that might conclusively point to the guilt of the accused are: i) evidence of great physical violence/resistance, which isn't present if a victim elects not to resist or is incapacitated; and ii) a multitude of character testimonials to establish that the victim is chaste (i.e. morally committed to not having sex or committed to only having sex with his/her spouse) and would under no circumstances consent to having sex with the accused, which is a rarity circa 2019.


Hence in most rape cases, the only thing to go on is the testimony of the victim and whatever scraps of circumstantial evidence the prosecutor can scrape together to try to prove mens rea. As a result, very few cases go to trial, very few trials lead to convictions, and judges/lawmakers tend to hand down lenient sentences. Our society places a great emphasis on shielding the innocent at the expense of exculpating the guilty.
So it comes down quite often to he said/she said, but if the jury believes the 'victim' you would have the convicted executed. Based on her testimony.

It's OK to execute convicted rapists because no woman has ever falsely accused someone of rape. No woman has ever recanted.
 
Trumpists should just move to el salvador and see the consequences of these laws.
 
Fair answer...Follow up question (s): Since you would make abortion illegal ( with exception of mother's health issues ), what would you make the penalty be for any women who received an abortion, or otherwise terminated her pregnancy ? and what would be your plan to enforce your decision to outlaw abortions ?
"Make abortion illegal" corresponds to the "building a society from the ground up" case. The new society would differ from modern Western society in many key respects, and my answers to your questions would have little relevance out of that context--especially the "plan to enforce my decision".

By way of example, suppose in society X it's absolutely taboo to speak ill of a political leader. The punishment for slandering a political leader even once is death. Parents teach their kids from birth that to slander a leader is a crime as heinous as murder. The moral, civil, and intellectual authorities expound on the enormity of slandering leaders. Children aren't permitted to speak in public at all until they've completed several courses that ensure they understand the law and swear oaths to uphold it. Written public speeches are run by several pairs of eyes to make absolutely certain an orator won't inadvertently break the law.

Now, suppose somebody from our society asks somebody from society X what the punishment should be for slandering a political leader, and the society X-er replies, "Death, of course." To us, this would seem absurd. If we imposed the death penalty for slandering leaders in our society, assuming it could even be enforced (it couldn't), it would result in a holocaust. Slandering political leaders is ubiquitous and a right in our society. Few people regard it as harmful or unlawful. It isn't taboo. It isn't condemned by our authorities. We have absolutely no education or precautions in place to prevent it. People do it as casually as scratching an itch.

Hence you can see why asking "What would the penalty be for...?" in the case of a hypothetical society is problematic.

Briefly, though, to humour you: the punishment for the mother would range from death to corporal punishment to nothing at all, depending on the circumstances. Typically, if a judge determined a mother to be of sound mind and guilty of harming herself to induce an abortion, this would be regarded as unlawful homicide, tantamount to infanticide, and she'd be put to death. The judge could of course show leniency on the basis of her mental state, pressure by her husband, etc.--all the way to handing down no punishment at all in extreme cases. Anyone found guilty of assisting with an (unlawful) abortion or promoting abortion would be put to death (again, subject to mental state).
 
So it comes down quite often to he said/she said, but if the jury believes the 'victim' you would have the convicted executed. Based on her testimony.

It's OK to execute convicted rapists because no woman has ever falsely accused someone of rape. No woman has ever recanted.
A society should never execute anybody based on the testimony of only one witness.
 
A society should never execute anybody based on the testimony of only one witness.

So how much evidence would there need to be before you would be willing to execute a convicted rapist?
 
So how much evidence would there need to be before you would be willing to execute a convicted rapist?
Either i) the testimony of two or more witnesses (including the victim) having observed the act or any resistance leading up to it, or ii) testimony of the victim, forensic evidence (i.e. presence of semen) that intercourse did occur, and either of the factors that "conclusively point to the guilt of the accused" in #54, with no witness coming forward to contradict.

I'd also be satisfied if the defendant was caught in an egregious lie. For example, in a famous case in California (I believe), a man forced a passing woman into his house and raped her, but she took note of details of the inside of his house and even counted the number of holes in his bedroom ceiling (a very large number, apparently; something like 36). He adamantly insisted during the trial that she'd never been in his house, let alone his bedroom. Hence her precise knowledge of something as obscure as the number of holes on his bedroom ceiling convinced a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd likewise consider this conclusive proof of his guilt.
 
Either i) the testimony of two or more witnesses (including the victim) having observed the act or any resistance leading up to it, or ii) testimony of the victim, forensic evidence (i.e. presence of semen) that intercourse did occur, and either of the factors that "conclusively point to the guilt of the accused" in #54, with no witness coming forward to contradict.

I'd also be satisfied if the defendant was caught in an egregious lie. For example, in a famous case in California (I believe), a man forced a passing woman into his house and raped her, but she took note of details of the inside of his house and even counted the number of holes in his bedroom ceiling (a very large number, apparently; something like 36). He adamantly insisted during the trial that she'd never been in his house, let alone his bedroom. Hence her precise knowledge of something as obscure as the number of holes on his bedroom ceiling convinced a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd likewise consider this conclusive proof of his guilt.

So she was having a fling with a married man. She decided to blackmail him when he wanted to end the affair. Yeah, that never happens. She claims rape, he lies to keep the truth from his wife and kids and the bastard gets what he deserves.

On the other hand, if California had the death penalty for rape, he would have been better off killing her.
 
So she was having a fling with a married man. She decided to blackmail him when he wanted to end the affair. Yeah, that never happens. She claims rape, he lies to keep the truth from his wife and kids and the bastard gets what he deserves.
In my from-the-ground-up society, adultery would likewise be punishable by death, hence these circumstances would never occur.

As for modern society, not only are these circumstances fantastically rare to begin with, we'd have to witness an even more unlikely combination of circumstances for a rape conviction.

Firstly, if the man had been having an affair with the woman in his house, he probably wouldn't be stupid enough to claim she'd never been there, which would risk a single piece of forensic evidence demolishing the lie.

Secondly, the woman would have to be a sociopath. Sociopaths have sociopathic histories. The defense would likely be able to turn up evidence of previous blackmail and extortion attempts.

Thirdly, no affair occurs in a perfect vacuum. Unless the accused met the woman one day and jumped her bones that same day, there's going to be evidence of their affair. Trace evidence in their houses and vehicles. Witnesses seeing them together. Security cameras catching them together. Friends, coworkers, acquaintances of either one having knowledge of the affair.

Failing all of these, then, yeah, the guy is screwed. He fooled around with the wrong woman and paid the price with his life. Let that be a lesson to all of us not to forsake our vows and jump into bed with eager, potentially sociopathic women.

On the other hand, if California had the death penalty for rape, he would have been better off killing her.
He'd have been better off killing her if California had any serious penalty for rape.

Even if California had no penalty at all, and the only consequence of a rape charge was being labeled a rapist, he'd have been better off killing her.

The only three potential reasons he'll spare her life are: i) he doesn't believe she'll report the rape, or that he'll be tried and convicted if she does, ii) he's afraid he'll be caught committing or covering up the murder, or iii) a shred of humanity prevents him from brutally murdering an innocent woman.

That's it. If any of (i), (ii) or (iii) are present, she lives. Otherwise she dies. The punishment hanging over his head doesn't factor in.
 
In my from-the-ground-up society, adultery would likewise be punishable by death, hence these circumstances would never occur.

As for modern society, not only are these circumstances fantastically rare to begin with, we'd have to witness an even more unlikely combination of circumstances for a rape conviction.

Firstly, if the man had been having an affair with the woman in his house, he probably wouldn't be stupid enough to claim she'd never been there, which would risk a single piece of forensic evidence demolishing the lie.

Secondly, the woman would have to be a sociopath. Sociopaths have sociopathic histories. The defense would likely be able to turn up evidence of previous blackmail and extortion attempts.

Thirdly, no affair occurs in a perfect vacuum. Unless the accused met the woman one day and jumped her bones that same day, there's going to be evidence of their affair. Trace evidence in their houses and vehicles. Witnesses seeing them together. Security cameras catching them together. Friends, coworkers, acquaintances of either one having knowledge of the affair.

Failing all of these, then, yeah, the guy is screwed. He fooled around with the wrong woman and paid the price with his life. Let that be a lesson to all of us not to forsake our vows and jump into bed with eager, potentially sociopathic women.


He'd have been better off killing her if California had any serious penalty for rape.

Even if California had no penalty at all, and the only consequence of a rape charge was being labeled a rapist, he'd have been better off killing her.

The only three potential reasons he'll spare her life are: i) he doesn't believe she'll report the rape, or that he'll be tried and convicted if she does, ii) he's afraid he'll be caught committing or covering up the murder, or iii) a shred of humanity prevents him from brutally murdering an innocent woman.

That's it. If any of (i), (ii) or (iii) are present, she lives. Otherwise she dies. The punishment hanging over his head doesn't factor in.

Wow! Death penalty for adultery? You are hardcore! What would your proposed penalty be for masturbation?
 
Wow! Death penalty for adultery? You are hardcore! What would your proposed penalty be for masturbation?
Masturbation doesn't violate a solemn oath, irreversibly destroy families, and irreversibly harm the people in them (children most especially), hence I'd leave policing it to God.

How about you? What would the penalties for rape, adultery, and masturbation be in your from-the-ground-up society?
 
Masturbation doesn't violate a solemn oath, irreversibly destroy families, and irreversibly harm the people in them (children most especially), hence I'd leave policing it to God.

How about you? What would the penalties for rape, adultery, and masturbation be in your from-the-ground-up society?

Irreversibly harm the children? Please! ""Your momma stepped out on your daddy, so we're going to kill her for you!" What kind of sick sharia fool thinks like that?
 
Irreversibly harm the children? Please! ""Your momma stepped out on your daddy, so we're going to kill her for you!" What kind of sick sharia fool thinks like that?
Your objections are noted.

My question is still outstanding. What would the penalties for rape, adultery, and masturbation be in your from-the-ground-up society?

I've answered several of your questions and entertained several hypotheticals. Do me the courtesy of answering at least one question in return.
 
Your objections are noted.

My question is still outstanding. What would the penalties for rape, adultery, and masturbation be in your from-the-ground-up society?

I've answered several of your questions and entertained several hypotheticals. Do me the courtesy of answering at least one question in return.
Free people should never be penalized for doing something that does not affect others.
 
Free people should never be penalized for doing something that does not affect others.
Firstly, there's no action anyone can take that doesn't affect others. Even taking a breath of air slightly disturbs one's surrounding environment, and the disturbance spreads and grows rapidly, chaotically, until it engulfs the entire planet, irreversibly changing the course of history in relatively short order. Such are the mathematics of chaos.

Hence the best we can do is not penalize people for doing things that don't predictably, characteristically harm others.

Secondly, I assure you that neither rape nor adultery come anywhere near falling inside this category.
 
Your objections are noted.

My question is still outstanding. What would the penalties for rape, adultery, and masturbation be in your from-the-ground-up society?

I've answered several of your questions and entertained several hypotheticals. Do me the courtesy of answering at least one question in return.

The problem I have with rape is the fact that often it is the victim who is put on trial. "Do you always dress that way, miss?"

I would like to see rape treated as any other aggravated assault. If he beats her up or he rapes her, it's all the same to me. If there is evidence to support it, convict him.

Adultery, like marriage is a civil matter, not criminal, and as such should be dealt with accordingly.
 
Wow! Death penalty for adultery? You are hardcore! What would your proposed penalty be for masturbation?

COTO seems to think the solution to overpopulation is the death penalty for any crimes he deems are punishable.
 
The problem I have with rape is the fact that often it is the victim who is put on trial. "Do you always dress that way, miss?"

I would like to see rape treated as any other aggravated assault. If he beats her up or he rapes her, it's all the same to me. If there is evidence to support it, convict him.

Adultery, like marriage is a civil matter, not criminal, and as such should be dealt with accordingly.

The problem with this, is that, as there are no way to prove rape without actual proof, it's pretty hard to sentence the rapist unless the victim does something in the following days, which in pretty much all cases, they don't ( Just like the Kavanaugh affair, 30 years later ). This leads to the rapist not getting sentenced and the victim not getting justice.

Now, what courts are tending to do, is the exact opposite. Guilty until proven innocent, and this allows abuse to happen. And, even tho sometimes the sentence is not the right one, the presumption of innocence it's the best option. You have to make a sacrifice in order to have a fair system, and unfortunately, it's the price to pay
 
Back
Top Bottom