• 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?


  • Total voters
    34
The abortion debate is very simple. Either you believe the fetus is the moral equivalent of a living person at X time in a pregnancy, or you don't. It all comes down to that. Either a fetus - all fetuses - have a right to live, or they don't. If they don't, it's entirely up to the woman. Pretty simple, and no exceptions allowed except for true dilemmas like a threat to the mother's life. Not easy to handle, but simple.
 
I would imagine it would be to save the life of the child. Perhaps you've worked with kids who "should never have been born"; but less you can identify that in the womb you'd have to take innocent life as innocent life and not cast judgment till that child grew up and made decisions and actions. Before that, there's not much to say. There's a lot of people I don't think should reproduce...basically anyone without a doctorate. But I don't really get to say who can't live; so most people are ok. I can't say "well statistically, you're going to have some amount of chance to commit a crime possibly in the future so I'm just gonna take you out now". Doesn't make much sense. Shouldn't be able to punish people for possible future crimes.

The point is that giving these children life and than forcing them out into a ghetto or some other dysfunctional environment just as cruel as abortion. If society deems it unacceptable to have abortions for reasons other than medical necessity than provisions should be made to raise those children in a positive and functioning environment, if the parent does not feel that he or she can provide for that. Otherwise you are trading one condemnation for another, even if its only a statistical possibility.
 
Last edited:
The abortion debate is very simple. Either you believe the fetus is the moral equivalent of a living person at X time in a pregnancy, or you don't. It all comes down to that. Either a fetus - all fetuses - have a right to live, or they don't. If they don't, it's entirely up to the woman. Pretty simple, and no exceptions allowed except for true dilemmas like a threat to the mother's life. Not easy to handle, but simple.

So, let me get ths right.

In the event that we establish the fact that "personhood" begins at conception,...

In YOUR OPINION,...

A woman has the right to kill a fully developed, cognitive, able to feel pain, aware, thinking human being (a perceived rapist) in an act of self defense,... even if all he wants is to have sex with her against her will....

But that same woman should be forced to allow a child (FORCED on her by her attacker),... to use her body and other resources,... placing her life and certainly her health in harms way,... for NINE months,... even if the pregnancy is against her will?

How is this not an example of what you just said above?

And why the double standard?

Either the woman has the right to defend herself against a threat she didn't invite against herself,...or she doesn't.
 
Last edited:
The point is that giving these children life and than forcing them out into a ghetto or some other dysfunctional environment just as cruel as abortion. If society deems it unacceptable to have abortions for reasons other than medical necessity than provisions should be made to raise those children in a positive and functioning environment. Otherwise you are trading one condemnation for another, even if its only a statistical possibility.

So living in the ghetto then is equivalent to being dead? I think perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration. But I do get the fundamental point, I just think being alive happens to be better than the alternative. Regardless of abortion being legal/illegal I think there is a necessary overall of our adoption policies. We need to make it easier and cheaper to adopt, allow same sex married couples to adopt, etc. There's a lot of work necessary and currently there are well more orphans than willing homes to take it. There would definitely have to be procedures and attitude adjustments. Still in the end, I don't think living in the ghetto is quite as bad as being dead, so it's not as simple as saying you're trading one condemnation for another. While growing up in the ghetto is not ideal and will come with strong environmental pressures towards crime; you're still alive which is a better state than dead.
 
So living in the ghetto then is equivalent to being dead? I think perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration.

I think the implication is that poor, neglected abused or destitue people have less a right to their life than others do. Or,... that their plight is a reasonable justification for denying the rights of children who MIGHT become 'poor, neglected, abused,... etc.'

In some people's mind,... it's more humane to abort those children than to risk having them grow up in undesirable conditions.

To use one's plight to deny the rights of another?

Speaking for myself,... that kind of logic is too sick and twisted for me to accept.
 
Last edited:
So, let me get ths right.

In the event that we establish the fact that "personhood" begins at conception,...

In YOUR OPINION,...

A woman has the right to kill a fully developed, cognitive, able to feel pain, aware, thinking human being (a perceived rapist) in an act of self defense,... even if all he wants is to have sex with her against her will....

But that same woman should be forced to allow a child (FORCED on her by her attacker),... to use her body and other resources,... placing her life and certainly her health in harms way,... for NINE months,... even if the pregnancy is against her will?

How is this not an example of what you just said above?

Of course. The baby is innocent.

You like to say you blame the rapist for killing the baby. But that's not an excuse. Blame the rapist for making the woman pregnant and required to have the baby. See how that works?

I brought up the analogy of killing a child that a burglar puts in your room in "self-defense". You have yet to show why this isn't a perfect analogy for your argument.
 
I think the implication is that poor, neglected abused or destitue people have less a right to their life than others do. Or,... that their plight is a reasonable justification for denying the rights of children who MIGHT become 'poor, neglected, abused,... etc.'

In some people's mind,... it's more humane to abort those children than to risk having them grow up in undesirable conditions.

I don't think any rational person could actually think that.
 
Of course. The baby is innocent.

The baby (in a rape pregnancy) is a REAL and existing threat to the woman's health, life and other resources. A Threat that she did NOT consent to or invite (implied consent) upon herself.

A perceived rapist is only a 'potential' or 'perceived' threat.

Yet, using your logic,... she has only the right (in a rape situation) to defend herself against a 'potential' threat,... and not a 'real' one.

Real nice.
 
Last edited:
The baby (in a pregnancy) is a REAL and existing threat to the woman's health, life and other resources.

Yes - in all cases, not just rape. So why restrict abortion rights to rape?

Yet, using your logic,... she has only the right (in a rape situation) to defend herself against a 'potential' threat,... and not a 'real' one.

A pregnancy in the case of rape is no more a threat than any other.
 
Do you think everyone who posts in these forums is being rational?

I believe everyone has the potential for it, in the very least.
 
So living in the ghetto then is equivalent to being dead? I think perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration. But I do get the fundamental point, I just think being alive happens to be better than the alternative. Regardless of abortion being legal/illegal I think there is a necessary overall of our adoption policies. We need to make it easier and cheaper to adopt, allow same sex married couples to adopt, etc. There's a lot of work necessary and currently there are well more orphans than willing homes to take it. There would definitely have to be procedures and attitude adjustments. Still in the end, I don't think living in the ghetto is quite as bad as being dead, so it's not as simple as saying you're trading one condemnation for another. While growing up in the ghetto is not ideal and will come with strong environmental pressures towards crime; you're still alive which is a better state than dead.

Honestly, I am not sure that it is. If I lived a life where I had few choices and there was a very strong possibility that the best I could do was work at McDonalds and had no real chance at happiness or fulfillment, I would wish I hadn't been born. Life is as valuable as we can make it to be, no more. We are the judge of our own value though. But for me, that sort of life would be more a curse than a gift and nonexistence would be the preferred state.
 
Last edited:
Consent.

Implied or otherwise.

It changes everything.

WHY?

What is it about consent?

If you believe a fetus is the equivalent of a person, the fetus has a right to life no matter what. Consent is irrelevant.

If you believe a fetus is not a person, the mother has a total right to her body. Consent is irrelevant.

How she got pregnant is her business. Either the baby has rights, or it doesn't, in which case the mother does.
 
WHY?

What is it about consent?

If you believe a fetus is the equivalent of a person, the fetus has a right to life no matter what. Consent is irrelevant.

If you believe a fetus is not a person, the mother has a total right to her body. Consent is irrelevant.

How she got pregnant is her business. Either the baby has rights, or it doesn't, in which case the mother does.

:2wave:

I'll leave you with your questions knowing that others will see that I have already answered them.

/ignore
 
Honestly, I am not sure that it is. If I lived a life where I had few choices and there was a very strong possibility that the best I could do was work at McDonalds and had no real chance at happiness or fulfillment, I would wish I hadn't been born. Life is as valuable as we can make it to be, no more. We are the judge of our own value though.

However, if that was my life, on balance, I think nonexistence would be preferable.

I'm not going to lie; that's pretty ****ed up right there. Being dead is permanent, there's no happy happy fun place to romp around in afterward. Dead is dead. My adviser's mother is suffering greatly from Alzheimer, but even she prefers to be alive. But at the very least, I think that decision should at least be up to the individual, not you. Someone can be born into the life and decide whether or not it's better to be alive or dead. Saying that allowing the abortion because you think hard life to be life not worth living is overstepping some boundaries there. At the very least, leave it up to the individual; you shouldn't be trying to play god.
 
I'm not going to lie; that's pretty ****ed up right there. Being dead is permanent, there's no happy happy fun place to romp around in afterward. Dead is dead. My adviser's mother is suffering greatly from Alzheimer, but even she prefers to be alive. But at the very least, I think that decision should at least be up to the individual, not you. Someone can be born into the life and decide whether or not it's better to be alive or dead. Saying that allowing the abortion because you think hard life to be life not worth living is overstepping some boundaries there. At the very least, leave it up to the individual; you shouldn't be trying to play god.

My take on life is that it is a neutral fact. It can be good or it can be bad based on what happens to a person during their lifetime and how that individual processes those events. But I agree, it is a bad thing to make that decision for someone, however I don't consider a fetus to be a full human being so I see the rules being slightly different there. Once the child is born however, society should bend over backwards to give that child as many opportunities as possible to life a happy and fulfilling life.
 
Last edited:
My take on life is that it is a neutral fact. It can be good or it can be bad based on what happens to a person during their lifetime. But I agree, it is a bad thing to make that decision for someone, however I don't consider a fetus to be a full human being so the I see the rules being slightly different there.

Removing the humanity of the victim is a time honored tradition in removal of guilt. Yet convenient definitions do not change reality.

Once the child is born however, society should bend over backwards to give that child as many opportunities as possible to life a happy and fulfilling life.

No it shouldn't. There's no guarantee on a happy happy, no work life. It may be ****ty, it may be superb given serendipity of birth. It's up to the parents and the individual to make a good life for themselves and their children. Not society at large. Life, liberty, property.
 
I would imagine it would be to save the life of the child. Perhaps you've worked with kids who "should never have been born"; but less you can identify that in the womb you'd have to take innocent life as innocent life and not cast judgment till that child grew up and made decisions and actions.

If the mother doesn't want the child, that's a pretty good predictor right there. If the mother would rather kill the child than bring it into the world, what are the child's odds at that point?

The pro-abortion crowd always seems to assume, "If we can just get these kids borned, everything will be a-okay." But consider...if the mother desperately doesn't want to bring a child into the world, is that mother even going to take proper care of the fetus throughout the pregnancy? Or, is that mother going to abuse alcohol, abuse drugs, attempt to force her body to abort? And how do you control for that? Are you going to prosecute women for not caring for their unborn fetus properly? Are you going to put them in prison? Force feed them against their will? How far are you willing to go to protect a 3 week old clump of cells?

Folks...we don't even have the resources to take care of the children we give birth to in this country. We have one of the highest rates of infanticide in the world. We have low birth weights, high rates of child abuse.

So, how many resources are you prepared to spend to force women to pursue a pregnancy they don't want?

I get that it's a terrible thing. But isn't the alternative worse?

I mean, we're going to make an exception for rape, but we're going to force a woman to carry a child inside her for months? Isn't that just another kind of rape?
 
Removing the humanity of the victim is a time honored tradition in removal of guilt. Yet convenient definitions do not change reality.

This is purely an intellectual exercise for me since I will never be pregnant so there is no possibility I could feel guilty as I would not be performing or agreeing to the act of abortion.

No it shouldn't. There's no guarantee on a happy happy, no work life. It may be ****ty, it may be superb given serendipity of birth. It's up to the parents and the individual to make a good life for themselves and their children. Not society at large. Life, liberty, property.

Honestly that is probably why I could never accept libertarianism. Throwing sometimes helpless people out to fend for themselves to what is often a hostile society to me is the ultimate cruelty.
 
Last edited:
If the mother doesn't want the child, that's a pretty good predictor right there. If the mother would rather kill the child than bring it into the world, what are the child's odds at that point?

The pro-abortion crowd always seems to assume, "If we can just get these kids borned, everything will be a-okay." But consider...if the mother desperately doesn't want to bring a child into the world, is that mother even going to take proper care of the fetus throughout the pregnancy? Or, is that mother going to abuse alcohol, abuse drugs, attempt to force her body to abort? And how do you control for that? Are you going to prosecute women for not caring for their unborn fetus properly? Are you going to put them in prison? Force feed them against their will? How far are you willing to go to protect a 3 week old clump of cells?

Folks...we don't even have the resources to take care of the children we give birth to in this country. We have one of the highest rates of infanticide in the world. We have low birth weights, high rates of child abuse.

So, how many resources are you prepared to spend to force women to pursue a pregnancy they don't want?

I get that it's a terrible thing. But isn't the alternative worse?

I mean, we're going to make an exception for rape, but we're going to force a woman to carry a child inside her for months? Isn't that just another kind of rape?

You know how it kills me to agree with you on anything, but I do.....:shock:
I have seen the effects of FAS first hand & it ain't pretty.....:(
An unwanted pregnancy should be terminated at the discretion of the impregnated, no matter the circumstance.....
There is no presumptive 'right to life' until AFTER birth......;)
 
If the mother doesn't want the child, that's a pretty good predictor right there. If the mother would rather kill the child than bring it into the world, what are the child's odds at that point?

The pro-abortion crowd always seems to assume, "If we can just get these kids borned, everything will be a-okay." But consider...if the mother desperately doesn't want to bring a child into the world, is that mother even going to take proper care of the fetus throughout the pregnancy? Or, is that mother going to abuse alcohol, abuse drugs, attempt to force her body to abort? And how do you control for that? Are you going to prosecute women for not caring for their unborn fetus properly? Are you going to put them in prison? Force feed them against their will? How far are you willing to go to protect a 3 week old clump of cells?

Folks...we don't even have the resources to take care of the children we give birth to in this country. We have one of the highest rates of infanticide in the world. We have low birth weights, high rates of child abuse.

So, how many resources are you prepared to spend to force women to pursue a pregnancy they don't want?

I get that it's a terrible thing. But isn't the alternative worse?

I mean, we're going to make an exception for rape, but we're going to force a woman to carry a child inside her for months? Isn't that just another kind of rape?

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.
 
Honestly that is probably why I could never accept libertarianism. Throwing sometimes helpless people out to fend for themselves to what is often a hostile society to me is the ultimate cruelty.

It's not throwing helpless people out to fend for themselves. And what are you talking about? Making someone work for his bread is now worse than advocating the death of that person? Please.
 
It's not throwing helpless people out to fend for themselves. And what are you talking about? Making someone work for his bread is now worse than advocating the death of that person? Please.

I think you are misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with working as it is a necessity brought on us by existence and the fact of limited resources. However that person being restricted in their possibilities due to their life circumstances and being forced, because of those circumstances, to live 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.

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 greater society if the mother is unfit for whatever reason. We have taken that choice from the mother and we must help her in that responsibility that we thrust on her.
 
Last edited:
And the Dungen Mod succeeds in completely derailing the thread.

:doh

What a (expletive omitted) shame.
 
Back
Top Bottom