• 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!

For women: would you bear a child who was conceived from a rape?

For women: would you bear a child who was conceived from a rape?

  • Yes, I'd bear the child and raise it

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • Yes, I'd bear the child and give it up for adoption

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, I would have an abortion

    Votes: 11 64.7%

  • No, I would seek out plan B, but if it didn't work I raise it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, I would seek out plan B, but if it didn't work, I would give it up for adoption

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Undecided/don't know

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Total voters
    17
ChrisL said:
joko104 said:
ChrisL said:
Anyone can find an study (or an article) to back up their opinion. If the article doesn't stand up to scrutiny and cannot prove a causative link (causative being the KEY word here), then it is nothing but theory and opinion (IOW, a junk study).

Nobody is talking about forcing the woman to have or keep the child. I simply stated MY opinion, which was asked. What IS your problem anyway?
Click to expand...

The claim that offspring have no traits for their biological parents is just nonsense and I see no reason to argue about the obvious.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
ChrisL said:
joko104 said:
The claim that offspring have no traits for their biological parents is just nonsense and I see no reason to argue about the obvious.
Click to expand...

No one said they don't inherit traits. I said there are NO guarantees at all. Two stupid people CAN have intelligent offspring and vice versa. Two criminals can have a child who will never commit a crime. If you are trying to use this as an argument to say that children born as a result of rape will grow up to be rapists themselves or even to commit other crimes, then you are just WRONG. So there really is no argument for me here. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Arcana XV said:
Morning after pill, people. There's no need to wait until you miss your period. Nip it in the bud. It's certainly what I would do.
Click to expand...

No, in pro-life slogan-land morality, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION" and therefore taking an MAP is murdering her "innocent baby" for which the violently raped teenager is more EVIL than the man who violently assaulted and raped her. He's JUST a rapist, but SHE is a BABY MURDERER of her own baby!

Because, oh terrrible horrors of destroying the zygote-baby no different that a newborn baby! And then they totally do a moral flip saying she should "just go thru pregnancy and labor have the baby" - which is no big deal at all as at worse a minor annoyance - and then just throw the baby away - which is what she does giving up the child at birth. In my opinion any woman who throws away her own child UNLESS to a SPECIFIC couple forever legally obligated of fully parenting duties - it is THAT woman that is INTOLERABLY EVIL and among the worst woman possible morally.

I get angry on this topic, why I tend to stay off the abortion board. The woman I wrote of does more than get angry at pro-lifers talking this to her. She will tell them to get away from her, if they don't she screams to get away for her, and if they still don't she might become violent against them. I know of no woman who more loves children and anyone can drop off any child(ren) at any time for an hour, day, weekend, or weeks and she will charge nothing and even thank them. Many people do. She lives her talk.

A devote Christian, she draws a distinction between humans as biological animals and humans as having a potential soul as a spiritual creature. Since the Bible says God "breathed life" into man - something not done with any animal - she does not believe a homo sapien becomes a human with a soul until first breathe is drawn. Until then, the fetus is just the ZEF species of the homo sapien animal and nothing more, with no more or less rights than the ZEF of any other animal - which is none.

But once born, the obligations and duties to that child on that mother and father go thru the ceiling - for which throwing away the child is unthinkably evil UNLESS it certain the child going to a specific good family forever legally obligated to be and act 100% as parents of that child.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
joko104 said:
ChrisL said:
No one said they don't inherit traits. I said there are NO guarantees at all. Two stupid people CAN have intelligent offspring and vice versa. Two criminals can have a child who will never commit a crime. If you are trying to use this as an argument to say that children born as a result of rape will grow up to be rapists themselves or even to commit other crimes, then you are just WRONG. So there really is no argument for me here. ;)
Click to expand...
.
And I am saying that is a gamble for the woman to decide. There are no guarentees but there are odds. Odd are that if the bio-father is short and fat, the child will be too. The odds are if the biofather is a mental slow learner of a heritage of slow learned in IQ, so will the child. The same for known inheritable genetic health and disease traits. Etc

Unlike your apparent view, I think a woman should consider what traits she is at least attempting to give her child, rather than not giving a damn. If there is a high statistical chance the child will be born with spina bifida, extremely low intelligence, a highly unattractive physical appearance trait, or with physical handicaps, the woman ethically should not have that be the bio-father of her child, though if he could handle that she certainly still could marry him.

We know one woman who did exactly that - her children not biologically parented by her husband, but he is their father and the children know nothing different.

Not once have I even hinted that a child concieved in rape has a higher chance of being a rapist or a criminal. Never, not once.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
No, in pro-life slogan-land morality, "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION" and therefore taking an MAP is murdering her "innocent baby" for which the violently raped teenager is more EVIL than the man who violently assaulted and raped her. He's JUST a rapist, but SHE is a BABY MURDERER of her own baby!

Because, oh terrrible horrors of destroying the zygote-baby no different that a newborn baby! And then they totally do a moral flip saying she should "just go thru pregnancy and labor have the baby" - which is no big deal at all as at worse a minor annoyance - and then just throw the baby away - which is what she does giving up the child at birth. In my opinion any woman who throws away her own child UNLESS to a SPECIFIC couple forever legally obligated of fully parenting duties - it is THAT woman that is INTOLERABLY EVIL and among the worst woman possible morally.

I get angry on this topic, why I tend to stay off the abortion board. The woman I wrote of does more than get angry at pro-lifers talking this to her. She will tell them to get away from her, if they don't she screams to get away for her, and if they still don't she might become violent against them. I know of no woman who more loves children and anyone can drop off any child(ren) at any time for an hour, day, weekend, or weeks and she will charge nothing and even thank them.

A devote Christian, she draws a distinction between humans as biological animals and humans as having a potential soul as a spiritual creature. Since the Bible says God "breathed life" into man - something not done with any animal - she does not believe a homo sapien becomes a human with a soul until first breathe is drawn. Until then, the fetus is just the ZEF species of animal and nothing more, with no more or less rights than the ZEF of any other animal - which is none.

But once born, the obligations and duties to that child on that mother and father go thru the ceiling - for which throwing away the child is unthinkably evil UNLESS it certain the child going to a specific good family forever legally obligated to be and act 100% as parents of that child.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I know some people who were adopted (and so do YOU apparently), who have turned into WONDERFUL people and are very happy. Giving a child the chance to live is NOT throwing the child away. Your statements about people who have made an informed decision to put their child up for adoption, adoptive parents and people who have been adopted are completely bogus and totally unfair and without merit.
 
ChrisL said:
It's a horrible situation that I'm sure we all wish we could prevent.

Aunt Spiker's situation is just the kind of situation I am referring to. She feels the way she feels. There is nothing I can do to change this, and I don't think she is "wrong" for the way she feels. I would NEVER condemn her for her decision to do what she feels is right or look down upon her for it, but I can still be pro-life in the fact that I don't have to agree with it either, and I can still think that it is a shame that circumstances led to this decision.

You can be pro-life but also be realistic about it. Just because I'm pro-life does not mean that I am too obtuse to recognize that in some cases that is just asking TOO much from a person. I can totally understand how a woman's mental health and/or life could be effected by situations like these, but I can still feel sad about the loss of a potential life and that women even have to make such "choices."

I don't understand why everyone thinks you have to so rigid in your thinking and cannot take a more realistic approach to things. It doesn't undermine what I would PREFER to see happen.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute your right to be pro-life and I do recognize "good motives" in your having such a view. Unless you wish to go further and force your opinions on women by laws, I have no dispute with you. Just very strong disagreements.
 
Please keep in mind my question is regarding what a woman would choose to do, not be forced to do. I appreciate everyone's honesty in their replies, and I am sympathetic to the situations I have read about so far.
 
ChrisL said:
Like I said, I know some people who were adopted (and so do YOU apparently), who have turned into WONDERFUL people and are very happy. Giving a child the chance to live is NOT throwing the child away. Your statements about people who have made an informed decision to put their child up for adoption, adoptive parents and people who have been adopted are completely bogus and totally unfair and without merit.
Click to expand...

Again, since I don't believe a ZEF is a "child," arguing about giving the "child" a "right to life" is the endless abortion debate.

I am VERY strong against a woman giving up a child at birth UNLESS it arranged for alterative good parents IS throwing the child away. Yes, some people are raised wonderfully by adoptive parents. She was. BUT her adoptive mother is the sister of her bio-mother as a young teen and it known the older sister (her adoptive mother) was incapable of having children. She describes her childhood and her adoptive parents as "perfect." BUT she was NOT thrown away. Who would be her parents before her birth was known and known to be great potential parents.

Throwing a newborn into "the system" is just a crap shoot. Some babies win. Some lose. I lost. Many do.

I was a thrown away baby. I was $63.47 to $112.18 plus some food stamps to those people. And, like all the other male children dumped there, just little animals to abuse, assault, torment and use sadistically in ways I won't write of. Female little children were of even less value other than the monthly G-money that they kept receiving for 18 years whether the girl was still alive or not, and none of the girls were for long. I doubt any of those girls survived to adulthood and certainly less than 50% of the males, most of those severely and permanently crippled and multilated physically and psychologically. I was lucky and I managed to escape at age 15. I took a newborn baby girl with me. She wouldn't have lived through the next day had I not. She is now my college age adoptive daughter.

The pro-life posters of the wonderful loving young white couple holding the beautiful little blue eyed white little baby is mostly just a myth. There are exceptions. But those are exceptions to the rule. The "good stories" tend to be pre-arranged adoptions, not children thrown into the system.

And then there are all the children born with severe physical and mental disabilities that are basically just left lying in a corner all their lives in a true living hell, maybe worse than my childhood and youth was.

Unless the birth mother has made specific arrangements for legally bound wonderful parents, in my opinion that birth mother has total moral obligation and duty to raise the child she gave birth to as perfectly as she is able to. No more throwing away babies at birth into the unknown - claiming that is the moral thing to do. It is obscenely evil - my opinion of it.
 
joko104 said:
I don't dispute your right to be pro-life and I do recognize "good motives" in your having such a view. Unless you wish to go further and force your opinions on women by laws, I have no dispute with you. Just very strong disagreements.
Click to expand...

I don't want to ban anything. There IS such a thing as a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or agree with it. I think it is always wise for women to be FULLY informed about ALL of their choices before being "encouraged" to seek out an abortion.

Also, I know a woman who gave a child up for adoption because she was only 15 when she got pregnant. She and the father came to the decision together. I didn't know her at that time, but I can say that she is a mother now of other children and is a great mom. She did what she believed to be what was BEST for her child and would completely disagree with you that she threw her child away.
 
joko104 said:
Again, since I don't believe a ZEF is a "child," arguing about giving the "child" a "right to life" is the endless abortion debate.

I am VERY strong against a woman giving up a child at birth UNLESS it arranged for alterative good parents IS throwing the child away. Yes, some people are raised wonderfully by adoptive parents. She was. BUT her adoptive mother is the sister of her bio-mother as a young teen and it known the older sister (her adoptive mother) was incapable of having children. She describes her childhood and her adoptive parents as "perfect." BUT she was NOT thrown away. Who would be her parents before her birth was known and known to be great potential parents.

Throwing a newborn into "the system" is just a crap shoot. Some babies win. Some lose. I lost. Many do.

I was a thrown away baby. I was $63.47 to $112.18 plus some food stamps to those people. And, like all the other male children dumped there, just little animals to abuse, assault, torment and use sadistically in ways I won't write of. Female little children were of even less value other than the monthly G-money that they kept receiving for 18 years whether the girl was still alive or not, and none of the girls were for long. I doubt any of those girls survived to adulthood and certainly less than 50% of the males, most of those severely and permanently crippled and multilated physically and psychologically. I was lucky and I managed to escape at age 15. I took a newborn baby girl with me. She wouldn't have lived through the next day had I not. She is now my college age adoptive daughter.

The pro-life posters of the wonderful loving young white couple holding the beautiful little blue eyed white little baby is mostly just a myth. There are exceptions. But those are exceptions to the rule. The "good stories" tend to be pre-arranged adoptions, not children thrown into the system.

And then there are all the children born with severe physical and mental disabilities that are basically just left lying in a corner all their lives in a true living hell, maybe worse than my childhood and youth was.

Unless the birth mother has made specific arrangements for legally bound wonderful parents, in my opinion that birth mother has total moral obligation and duty to raise the child she gave birth to as perfectly as she is able to. No more throwing away babies at birth into the unknown - claiming that is the moral thing to do. It is obscenely evil - my opinion of it.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with anything. Some biological parents kill their own children too. Sometimes a stranger kills someone child. Just because someone is not the biological parent does NOT mean that they would do the child harm. In fact, I would be willing to bet that less adoptive parents kill their children than do biological parents, so that point is moot. There are NEVER guarantees in life.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't want to ban anything. There IS such a thing as a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or agree with it. I think it is always wise for women to be FULLY informed about ALL of their choices before being "encouraged" to seek out an abortion.

Also, I know a woman who gave a child up for adoption because she was only 15 when she got pregnant. She and the father came to the decision together. I didn't know her at that time, but I can say that she is a mother now of other children and is a great mom. She did what she believed to be what was BEST for her child and would completely disagree with you that she threw her child away.
Click to expand...

What happened to that child?
 
Uzidoesit said:
That's like asking if you would have the nerve to hide Jews during WWII. Unless you were there, how could you say, truthfully?
Click to expand...

You can't say with certainty, but you can estimate, based on your value systems, beliefs, and your ability to put emotions and intellect into proper perspective.
 
joko104 said:
What happened to that child?
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you asked. As a matter of fact, the adoptive parents were quite actively involved in pregnancy and birth of the child, and they remain friends with my friend, and the "child" who is now 17, is doing just fine.
 
ChrisL said:
That has nothing to do with anything. Some biological parents kill their own children too. Sometimes a stranger kills someone child. Just because someone is not the biological parent does NOT mean that they would do the child harm. In fact, I would be willing to bet that less adoptive parents kill their children than do biological parents, so that point is moot. There are NEVER guarantees in life.
Click to expand...

It is not irrelevant at all, but I won't go deeper into it either.

I think you over use the slogan "there are no guarentees in life." It'd be like letting a 2 year old wander around outside alone because "there are no guarentees in life" as that child could get hit by a car anyway. In a sense it is to claim there is no difference between doing something or doing nothing, because it all is just random and uncontrollable anyway. But its not.

A white man sees a black newborn of his white wife who said it was his. "It is all random and there are no guarentees with genetics." Think he'd accept that as true, that this does not give question if he's the father?

I think it is immoral to give birth to a child and then abandoning the child to the unknown on the premise of "there's no guarentees in life anyway." In fact, if that birth mother committed to the duty to be responsible for her own child - there is a guarentee that someone was being responsible towards that child. Seems rather obvious.

Or I could use your logic of there is no guarentees in life, point to the high percentage of miscarriages, and then just claim "she might have had a miscarriage anyway because there is no guarentees" as a defense of abortion.

Again, though, it comes down to whether a ZEF is a baby or not. You just wrote that is irrelevant? But that is the core of the question. IF a ZEF is a baby the same as a born baby, of course it has an equal right to life. If not, then it doesn't and there is no reason for a woman to birth it unless she decides that is what she wants to do. But that just goes to the total abortion debate issue and the 100,000 back and forth messages about it. I now mostly stay out of those debates as they go nowhere.
 
joko104 said:
It is not irrelevant at all, but I won't go deeper into it either.

I think you over use the slogan "there are no guarentees in life." It'd be like letting a 2 year old wander around outside alone because "there are no guarentees in life" as that child could get hit by a car anyway. In a sense it is to claim there is no difference between doing something or doing nothing, but it all is just random and uncontrollable anyway. But its not.

I think it is immoral to give birth to a child and then abandoning the child to the unknown on the premise of "there's no guarentees in life anyway." In fact, if that birth mother committed to the duty to be responsible for her own child - there is a guarentee that someone was being responsible towards that child. Seems rather obvious.

Or I could use your logic of there is no guarentees in life, point to the high percentage of miscarriages, and then just claim "she might have had a miscarriage anyway because there is no guarentees" as a defense of abortion.

Again, though, it comes down to whether a ZEF is a baby or not. You just wrote that is irrelevant? But that is the core of the question. IF a ZEF is a baby the same as a born baby, of course it has an equal right to life. If not, then it doesn't and there is no reason for a woman to birth it unless she decides that is what she wants to do. But that just goes to the total abortion debate issue and the 100,000 back and forth messages about it. I now mostly stay out of those debates as they go nowhere.
Click to expand...

See post #90.
 
lizzie said:
You can't say with certainty, but you can estimate, based on your value systems, beliefs, and your ability to put emotions and intellect into proper perspective.
Click to expand...

Not really. Say you were putting your own children's lives in jeopardy by harboring Jews? I mean, I'm Jewish and I can't say for sure if I would have the nerve to save say, hypothetically speaking, Latinos, and have Nazi's come in and shoot my children.

I'd like to think I would have the internal fortitude to do it, but I can't say for absolute sure unless I was in the thick of it.
 
ChrisL said:
There are some wonderful adoption programs around that will allow the birth parents to get to know the potential adoptive parents.

Open adoption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

If the woman has a specific contract with specific parents who can't back out in any way regardless of the conditions of the child, I'm all for it if that's what the woman wants to do. However, if those adoptive parents learn the newborn is down syndrome, severely physical deformed or mentally handicapped, those adoptive parents would have to take that child entirely as their own and if refused would pay every dollar it would take for the absolute finest personal care and medical of that child the rest of that child's life and even with the mandatorily in both those adoptive parent's wills. If that cost $5 million dollars across the life of that child. And if they fail to do so, 100% of parental duties falls back on the birth mother.

A newborn - or older child too - can be given to other GOOD and legally obligated parents. As long as they are good parents, that's fine. If they turn out not to be, that duty goes 100% back to the birth mother (and bio father too) unless and until different GOOD and legally obligated parents are found. I do NOT accept just throwing children into the unknown. I do not think a birth mother can ever do so morally.

What POSSIBLE justification is there claiming a woman has a moral duty to birth a rape-produced child - but that mothering moral duty can totally end the moment that child actually is in the world? I can not even grasp anyone thinking that way.
 
lizzie said:
It takes a willingness to put the interest of someone else above that of yourself.
Click to expand...

You could stop at the morning after pill and be done with it. Trying to suggest that a woman would want an abortion had she been raped is selfish, however is very disturbing.
 
JohnWOlin said:
You could stop at the morning after pill and be done with it. Trying to suggest that a woman would want an abortion had she been raped is selfish, however is very disturbing.
Click to expand...

Because "life begins at conception," many pro-lifers believe the MAP is baby killing.
 
joko104 said:
Because "life begins at conception," many pro-lifers believe the MAP is baby killing.
Click to expand...

There are several psychological and physical implications to consider if the woman didn't however not just for her but for many that care about her. I've said about all I can say though.
 
JohnWOlin said:
There are several psychological and physical implications to consider if the woman didn't however not just for her but for many that care about her. I've said about all I can say though.
Click to expand...

It does just become an endless word circle.
 
I would absolutely not have my rapist's baby. Just try and stop me from aborting.
 
Arcana XV said:
Where did I say that it's a requirement? The OP asks what I, as a woman, would do in such a situation. I certainly would not wait weeks to find out if I'm pregnant.
Click to expand...
Again, quoting myself "I see. Any young woman or girl should be required to go to the store and buy a morning after pill after being raped. I think I understand you." I wrote this because you, in your statement makes the responsibility for taking prompt assertive action the victim, often a 15 year old girl, not an assertive adult woman that can think about possible ramifications of being raped. Again, your statement makes it a requirement, but you just don't use the word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom