• 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!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

rocket88 said:
OK, so the "They made the choice already" doesn't apply then. Because they didn't make the choice already.
Click to expand...

Correct. One cannot be held accountable from a personal responsibility standpoint when one is coerced or infringed upon. That is a typically very strong argument against abortion that does not apply in the exceedingly rare event of a rape pregnancy.

Applies very well to the overwhelming majority of cases, however.

Your position is that they should be required to carry around and feed a person they didn't in any way choose to have there. Why?
Click to expand...

My position is that the rapist inflicted harm and the rapist should be punished.

The unborn child has done nothing wrong and you cannot justify aggression against a third party for something someone else did to you. Pregnancy is self-limiting and it is not a disease. There is no need to kill anyone. I don't think the solution to a problem that began with violence is for the victim to lash out even more violently at someone else.

I think aggressive homicide is a worse thing to perpetrate against another innocent human being than rape. Generally, our system of criminal penalties reflects this.

It would be completely understandable if the mother wanted to give the child up for adoption.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
And your counter-question was quite plain. What happens to most humans who want to kill other humans?



For the record, I'm neither lesser nor enslaved in any way because I'm not permitted to kill other humans in aggression. That dog just won't hunt. Sorry.
Click to expand...

thats good to bad that is absolutely meaningless to the abortion debate. :shrug: it holds no logical reference to abortion at all.
Its the most dishonest and inane failed analogy i have ever heard LMAO

nobody is trying to make the dog hunt besides you :laughat:

tell me how not murdering your neighbor forces you to be possible be mentally and physically damaged, tell me how you LOSE rights, freedoms and liberties, tell me how you are forced to make decesion for 9 months in favor of your neighbe and with your neighbors best interest in mind even if it means risking your own life, tell me how your neighbor is forcing you to risk your life against you will.

when those things become true about the neighbor you cant MURDER get back to me. Your dishonest and ignorance of reality is hilarious.

comparing abortion to killing your neighbor will always be illogical and void of reality and facts. It fails everytime on many levels.

better yet, just answer this question.

Can i force you against your will to risk your life?

so now do you have the balls and integrity to honestly answer the question or will you dodge it AGAIN LMAO
 
JayDubya said:
It would be completely understandable if the mother wanted to give the child up for adoption.
Click to expand...

It's also completely understandable if the mother wanted to abort.
 
rocket88 said:
OK, so the "They made the choice already" doesn't apply then. Because they didn't make the choice already.

Your position is that they should be required to carry around and feed a person they didn't in any way choose to have there. Why?
Click to expand...

because the woman doesnt matter only the ZEF, the ZEF is more important to him.
 
JayDubya said:
Correct. One cannot be held accountable from a personal responsibility standpoint when one is coerced or infringed upon. That is a typically very strong argument against abortion that does not apply in the exceedingly rare event of a rape pregnancy.

Applies very well to the overwhelming majority of cases, however.



.
Click to expand...

LMAO how convenient, "it doesnt apply here" LOL totally hypocritical
 
Thorgasm said:
It's also completely understandable if the mother wanted to abort.
Click to expand...

exactly, to force woman to carry a ZEF to term against her will would be like raping her twice
 
Thorgasm said:
It's also completely understandable if the mother wanted to abort.
Click to expand...

Technically? Yes. It is somewhat understandable for a victim to be so traumatized by what has occurred to them that they can be irrational and thus be tempted to do awful things, even sometimes to those who have not actually wronged them.

It is not understandable or permissible for them to proceed to do them, however.
 
Yep. A republican said it, so all republicans MUST agree with it right? The guy is an idiot. Get over it.
 
When I concede that one very strong rhetorical strategy against abortion cannot be applied to the scenario of a rape pregnancy, and then I proceed to not use that rhetorical strategy, that is "hypocrisy" only to one who does not know what the word means.

Cheers.
 
JayDubya said:
When I concede that one very strong rhetorical strategy against abortion cannot be applied to the scenario of a rape pregnancy, and then I proceed to not use that rhetorical strategy, that is "hypocrisy" only to one who does not know what the word means.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

translation: you still cant logical or factually back up your claim. Cheers indeed!! :lol:

ih and yes it is
 
JayDubya said:
It would be completely understandable if the mother wanted to give the child up for adoption.
Click to expand...

So you favor forcing a woman to carry and nurture the fetus for 9 months. Does their health insurance have to cover the pre-natal care, or is she on the hook for that too?
 
JayDubya said:
Technically? Yes. It is somewhat understandable for a victim to be so traumatized by what has occurred to them that they can be irrational and thus be tempted to do awful things, even sometimes to those who have not actually wronged them.

It is not understandable or permissible for them to proceed to do them, however.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been raped?

Have you dealt with the nightmares?

Have you dealt with the inability to trust?

Have you ever been pregnant?

I suspect the answer is "no" to these questions which would explain why you can't understand.
 
ab9924 said:
Didn't they only say that the rape itself is a way that could have been arranged by God? I don't see where they implied that the resulting pregnancy too.

Maybe if the animal kingdom is any kind of indication (as our evolutionary predecessor or not), raped females auto-abort their pregnancies. The reason why human women can't auto-abort is our advance technology and comfort that comes with it. Biologically, rape is an infeasible pregnancy because it does not carry the male's time invested in the child.

Also, may be interesting, we have no way to tell what God considers finished/completed. Most projects get axed, most people die under 20 with God only and without technology, so why would abortion be an exception? Can we clain then that if God provides rape, then God provides abortion too?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't believe this man meant to say rape was a gift from god. I think some may have over reacted by thinking that.

But I don't believe ANY pregnancy is "a gift from God". I think that is humans way of explaining unexplainable things. Don't know why something happens..... call it a Godly mystery.

Pregnancy is as another poster said, biology. Now, how that biology works is quite Godly, but once you get past that, it's just biology.
 
Thorgasm said:
Have you ever been raped?

Have you dealt with the nightmares?

Have you dealt with the inability to trust?

Have you ever been pregnant?

I suspect the answer is "no" to these questions which would explain why you can't understand.
Click to expand...

I stated I can understand why someone might be tempted to do horrible things, either to themselves or to lash out at others. It's trauma. I get it. I can only sympathize.

But just because you've been traumatized does not justify hurting someone else. Sorry. It just doesn't.

You're trying to use "walk a mile in other people's shoes" to try and justify something that just can't be justified like that.
 
rocket88 said:
So you favor forcing a woman to carry and nurture the fetus for 9 months. Does their health insurance have to cover the pre-natal care, or is she on the hook for that too?
Click to expand...

As the sole party desiring the intercourse, the rapist should be the one held accountable for the pregnancy's related expenses, should he not?
 
Thorgasm said:
I suspect the answer is "no" to these questions which would explain why you can't understand.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who can only say "no" to those questions, and who nonetheless are still capable of displaying the barest shreds of empathy.
 
JayDubya said:
As the sole party desiring the intercourse, the rapist should be the one held accountable for the pregnancy's related expenses, should he not?
Click to expand...

So not only should she carry the rapist's child, she should be dependent upon him as well?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
So not only should she carry the rapist's child, she should be dependent upon him as well?
Click to expand...

Not sure how you go from point A to point B there, but a court should force someone to be financially responsible for the costs they inflict upon others.

Do you disagree?
 
Thorgasm said:
Have you ever been raped?

Have you dealt with the nightmares?

Have you dealt with the inability to trust?

Have you ever been pregnant?

I suspect the answer is "no" to these questions which would explain why you can't understand.
Click to expand...

I think he does understand, i think he simply doesnt care, people should do what he says that thats that in his opinion. He views the ZEF as more important and nothing else really matters he just doesnt have the guts to admit it.
 
JayDubya said:
I stated I can understand why someone might be tempted to do horrible things, either to themselves or to lash out at others. It's trauma. I get it. I can only sympathize.

But just because you've been traumatized does not justify hurting someone else. Sorry. It just doesn't.

You're trying to use "walk a mile in other people's shoes" to try and justify something that just can't be justified like that.
Click to expand...

Abortion doesn't hurt anybody else. Most abortions occur within 12 weeks, LONG BEFORE a fetus has developed the neural pathways and nerve ending necessary to feel and process pain. There is no awareness, no consciousness.

What you're doing is interjecting your own beliefs on the condition of a fetus (which aren't backed by science, BTW) and thereby judging and condemning people who fail to abide by it. Remember: morality is subjective, scientific fact is not.
 
JayDubya said:
As the sole party desiring the intercourse, the rapist should be the one held accountable for the pregnancy's related expenses, should he not?
Click to expand...

I'd be in favor of that, except that it's not always possible. You would hope that the rapist goes to jail, right? So he'll be unable to earn a living, what if he does not have the resources before going to prison?
 
JayDubya said:
I stated I can understand why someone might be tempted to do horrible things, either to themselves or to lash out at others. It's trauma. I get it. I can only sympathize.

But just because you've been traumatized does not justify hurting someone else. Sorry. It just doesn't.

You're trying to use "walk a mile in other people's shoes" to try and justify something that just can't be justified like that.
Click to expand...

LMAO
unless that someone else is the woman

guess we should walk a mile in your shoes amd maybe we will understand why its ok for you to hurt someone (the woman)

its amazing you can even type these responses. They are so dishonest and hypocritical.

"someone", only matters when its the ZEF to you and you make the fact more and more obvious with each post.
 
Objective-J said:
I think he does understand, i think he simply doesnt care, people should do what he says that thats that in his opinion. He views the ZEF as more important and nothing else really matters he just doesnt have the guts to admit it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that he's an uncaring person. That's an unfair criticism.

I do get the feeling that he's starting from a pro-life standpoint and hasn't necessarily thought through all of the consequences of what he thinks is right.
 
rocket88 said:
I'd be in favor of that, except that it's not always possible. You would hope that the rapist goes to jail, right? So he'll be unable to earn a living, what if he does not have the resources before going to prison?
Click to expand...

"Hi, Business X? This is Deputy Dude, with the Texas State Department of Corrections. I'm going to need you to employ this convicted rapist so he can pay for the pregnancy-related costs inflicted upon his victim."

Can you imagine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom