• 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

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just like the title says.

It's the year ???? and the anti-abortion movement has finally succeeded in banning elective abortions; making them illegal.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that 'personhood' begins at conception and that children while in the womb have a 14th Amendment right to their lives, due process and equal protection under the law.

The Constitution remains as it is currently worded.

Would you demand and support an exception to the ban for cases where a woman was raped and she becomes pregnant?
 
Last edited:
Abortion is never going to be made illegal again. it's a nice fantasy, though.
 
Abortion is never going to be made illegal again. it's a nice fantasy, though.

It is fantasy for sure, but I don't think the question hinges on it. I see it more as a philosophical question based on a hypothetical situation. I suppose it is valid response to say the hypothetical in question is incredibly unlikely; but it's the zero solution for the philosophical question.
 
I see no reason to further punish the lady who was raped, so yeah. In fact it should be allowed even if the rape was reported an untimely manner. Actual People > Potential People.
 
Last edited:
I see no reason to further punish the lady who was raped, so yeah. In fact it should be allowed even if the rape was reported an untimely manner. Actual People > Potential People.

That said,... do you not agree that the longer the woman waits to report the rape (talking weeks not minutes here),... the more she 'consents' to the conditions of her pregnancy?
 
Abortion is murder because it ends the life of another human being. Rape is no exception. The child can't help the fact that it was conceived through a horrible crime, but why should it also pay the ultimate price? Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Abortion is murder because it ends the life of another human being. Rape is no exception. The child can't help the fact that it was conceived through a horrible crime, but why should it also pay the ultimate price? Two wrongs don't make a right.

:doh

I appreciate your take on this one Digs.

I hope you can appreciate mine (the differences between an invited pregnancy and one forced - and the right she has to defend herself)... or at least take the time to try and understand it.

--Chuz.
 
:doh

I appreciate your take on this one Digs.

I hope you can appreciate mine (the differences between an invited pregnancy and one forced - and the right she has to defend herself)... or at least take the time to try and understand it.

--Chuz.

It all depends on why we are against abortion, if it's because we believe the fetus has a right to life, then that right is universal regardless of the conception circumstances. I understand your take on things and I appreciate it, but I must disagree because I think even a baby conceived through rape has the right to be born.
 
Presumably everyone who supports abortion rights would support such a thing, so you're basically asking abortion opponents if there should be a rape exception. Or am I missing something?
 
It all depends on why we are against abortion, if it's because we believe the fetus has a right to life, then that right is universal regardless of the conception circumstances. I understand your take on things and I appreciate it, but I must disagree because I think even a baby conceived through rape has the right to be born.

Chuz is more of the "fetus as punishment for sluttishness" school of thought, himself.
That's why he supports the rape exception.

It's all pretty hypothetical anyway, since elective abortion will never be illegal.
 
Just like the title says.

It's the year ???? and the anti-abortion movement has finally succeeded in banning elective abortions; making them illegal.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that 'personhood' begins at conception and that children while in the womb have a 14th Amendment right to their lives, due process and equal protection under the law.

The Constitution remains as it is currently worded.

Would you demand and support an exception to the ban for cases where a woman was raped and she becomes pregnant?

If the supreme court ruled that personhood began at conception then there should not be a rape exception. The ZEF committed no crime and therefore there is no basis on which to take away its life, which is protected by the 14th amendment.
 
It all depends on why we are against abortion, if it's because we believe the fetus has a right to life, then that right is universal regardless of the conception circumstances. I understand your take on things and I appreciate it, but I must disagree because I think even a baby conceived through rape has the right to be born.

Does a baby conceived by rape have the right (clearly not intentional) to kill the mother?

Do you support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life?

Do you see where I am going with this?

In a 'life of the mother' abortion,... the child has no 'intent' to kill or harm the mother either,... but she has the right to abort to save her life.

Likewise when a child (pregnancy) is forced upon her against her will...

Don't you see?

It's the rapist who is ultimately responsible for the child's death.

And if the woman can be (or wants to be) convinced to have the child regardless? Oh my GAWD! Tell me what she needs and I will gladly try to help her. But if she can't do it,... it is wrong, and more importantly 'Un_Constitutional' to force her.
 
If the supreme court ruled that personhood began at conception then there should not be a rape exception. The ZEF committed no crime and therefore there is no basis on which to take away its life, which is protected by the 14th amendment.

See post # 12
 
Does a baby conceived by rape have the right (clearly not intentional) to kill the mother?

Do you support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life?

Do you see where I am going with this?

In a 'life of the mother' abortion,... the child has no 'intent' to kill or harm the mother either,... but she has the right to abort to save her life.

Likewise when a child (pregnancy) is forced upon her against her will...

Don't you see?

It's the rapist who is ultimately responsible for the child's death.

And if the woman can be (or wants to be) convinced to have the child regardless? Oh my GAWD! Tell me what she needs and I will gladly try to help her. But if she can't do it,... it is wrong, and more importantly 'Un_Constitutional' to force her.

No more than it's "wrong, and more importantly 'Un_Constitutional" to force any woman to gestate a fetus against her will.
Nobody can force her to, anyway.
It's easy to abort a pregnancy.
The best you can hope to do is punish women after the fact for exercising their right to bodily sovereignty.
That's unconstitutional too, though, so it won't ever happen.
Even during the brief period in the history of our country that abortion was criminalized, few if any offenders were ever punished.
 
That said,... do you not agree that the longer the woman waits to report the rape (talking weeks not minutes here),... the more she 'consents' to the conditions of her pregnancy?

I think that as long as its in the first and possibly second trimester than it shouldn't matter.

I would also support a woman claiming rape even if it didn't happen if such laws were in place. As long as it didn't ruin some guy's life.

That being said, the thought of implied consent due to inaction after rape is a completely disgusting concept.
 
Last edited:
Given the conditions of the scenario where life is recognized to begin at conception, then no there couldn't be a rape clause. Human life is human life, and even a child born of rape has committed no wrong enough to warrant its destruction.
 
Does a baby conceived by rape have the right (clearly not intentional) to kill the mother?

Do you support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life?

Do you see where I am going with this?

In a 'life of the mother' abortion,... the child has no 'intent' to kill or harm the mother either,... but she has the right to abort to save her life.

Likewise when a child (pregnancy) is forced upon her against her will...

So why does she NOT have the right to abort when a rape has not occurred? That's what you need to explain. On what basis do you oppose abortion in normal cases? That's what is completely missing from you argument, every time. What is it you believe that makes you want to ban abortion for those who are not raped?
 
Last edited:
No, absolutely not. If I were somehow made to believe that a fetus was a 'person' deserving of full rights, then I would never in a million years sentence a person to death for the crimes of his/her father.
 
I can't really pick one of the poll options, so I chose "Other"

And here are a few thoughts on the matter.

Rape, IMO, is one of the worst possible criminal acts yet conceived by humans.

In my mental list of "worst criminal acts", it ranks above murder and below child molestation.
My reasoning is that at least an adult female has had more mental development, and may potentially handle such horrors better than a child. At least, a higher percentage might.

My views on abortion tend towards those of digsbe, in that "we believe the fetus has a right to life".

But as I'm unsure what portion of those views arises from my own examination of the situation, as opposed to the religious background from my younger years, I hesitate to commit to that view exclusively.

I see merit in both sides of the issue.

Taking into account my current tentative position on the issue, I would probably be happiest with abortions not being allowed except in the case of the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy.

As digsbe stated, "if it's because we believe the fetus has a right to life, then that right is universal regardless of the conception circumstances."

In this specific hypothetical issue, that of woman who is impregnated by a rapist...

My view would have that woman carry that child to term...Which I cannot view as a good thing either, especially if said woman's whole life was disrupted by it.

Not to mention the potential harm to the child if the mother does not want it, but is required by law to have it anyway…

But I can't completely agree with the idea that an unborn child, of any developmental stage, should be eliminated from potential participation in the world simply because they were unexpected/unwanted.
That said, I'm not convinced either way on the debate about when the sperm and egg transitions into a future human being

And then there is the fact that abortions and/or pregnancy prevention measures have been going on for thousands of years...With no negative consequences to speak of...Well, except perhaps to the woman applying them, in some cases.

Ah hell...

Basically, I don't really know where I stand...but have a few ideas about it.
 
Presumably everyone who supports abortion rights would support such a thing, so you're basically asking abortion opponents if there should be a rape exception. Or am I missing something?

If you are not sure,... or if there is a chance that you are missing something,... Why would you go ahead and vote in the poll?
 
That being said, the thought of implied consent due to inaction after rape is a completely disgusting concept.

It would be disgusting.

TRUE.

But to justify the killing of a child that resulted from a rape that could have been,.. possibly SHOULD have been reported much sooner would be pretty disgusting as well.
 
It would be disgusting.

TRUE.

But to justify the killing of a child that resulted from a rape that could have been,.. possibly SHOULD have been reported much sooner would be pretty disgusting as well.

Like I said. Actual person > potential person. Its a shame that a fetus has to be harmed due to the actions of another, but I think doing so would provide for the least harm overall in such an awful situation.
 
Last edited:
Does a baby conceived by rape have the right (clearly not intentional) to kill the mother?

Do you support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life?
I do, but only because in this instance it is self defense. The death is justified solely because the pregnancy would be fatal for both the mother and child. It is essentially preserving life by taking another life away. This is self defense and is totally different from aborting a child conceived through rape.
Do you see where I am going with this?

In a 'life of the mother' abortion,... the child has no 'intent' to kill or harm the mother either,... but she has the right to abort to save her life.

Likewise when a child (pregnancy) is forced upon her against her will...

Don't you see?

It's the rapist who is ultimately responsible for the child's death.

And if the woman can be (or wants to be) convinced to have the child regardless? Oh my GAWD! Tell me what she needs and I will gladly try to help her. But if she can't do it,... it is wrong, and more importantly 'Un_Constitutional' to force her.


I see where you are going, but I don't think rape is equal with a fatal pregnancy. A woman has the choice to end her pregnancy because her life is at stake. However, if a woman is raped and conceives, her life is not at risk. My justification is that the fetus has a right to be born and live, and it didn't chose to be born through rape. A woman my terminate her pregnancy when her life and her unborn child's life are in jeopardy because this is self defense. Even if a pregnancy is against her will she still doesn't have the right to kill her child against its will. The life of the individual unborn child outweighs the woman's 9 months of discomfort against her will. The rapist is not responsible for the child's death. He is responsible for violating an innocent woman and making her pregnant, but ultimately it is the woman who choses if it lives or dies.
 
Like I said. Actual person > potential person.

But I don't think that's the outline of the hypothetical. You come from a very developed theory wherein you state that the unborn child is something less than human. However, the scenario placed before us for the context of this thought exercise is to assume that it is now accepted that we accept life at conception. Therefore, a conceived child would be considered a "person".
 
So why does she NOT have the right to abort when a rape has not occurred? That's what you need to explain. On what basis do you oppose abortion in normal cases? That's what is completely missing from you argument, every time. What is it you believe that makes you want to ban abortion for those who are not raped?

Consent changes everything.

I can't simplify it any more than that for you.

If a guy grabs you,.. lashes your feet together and starts getting ready to throw you off a bridge,... you would have a right to KILL him in an act of self defense,... But if you pay that same guy to bind your feet and toss you over (bungee jumping) that same bridge,... You consented to the act and so (if you get killed) YOU are just as responsible as he is. (within reason)

Consent changes everything
 
Back
Top Bottom