toldailytopic: What about abortion in cases of rape?

[MaryContrary]

You got the math wrong.
In a case where you don't use the spermicide and there is no baby so you don't kill the baby then a day later the egg drops and gets fertilized and you then have a baby and then she aborts the baby.

Okay, hold on. Now any rape victim who gets pregnant will automatically have an abortion? And we, who do not risk murder to prevent that pregnancy are now culpable in her decision to murder her baby? So if we don't risk killing the baby, then we're party to this automatic murder later?

Your lists seem to want to take the rapist culpability and extend it to the final outcome, but when you make that decision with the spermicide you pick up a tier of culpability yourself.

My list hasn't anything to do with the rapist's culpability. He's guilty of rape. That not only doesn't change but it has nothing to do with our decision whether to use the baby-killing spermicide. Rather, it's you who seems to think it matters at all to the situation. It just doesn't. Whether the sperm belongs to a rapist or the woman's husband or magically appeared there doesn't change any of the elements of the scenario at all.

If you think that it does, then you'll need to accept and admit that the value of an unborn child's life varies dependent on who the father is and under what circumstances the pregnancy occurred. Do those things matter to the value of the life we're talking about? Is a child's life worth more or less dependent on these things? If not, then the father in this scenario being a rapist and the pregnancy occurring as a result of rape are both irrelevant points. They only exist in the scenario as emotional appeals.

You could have all your rape victims abort babies that wouldn't have been conceived if you had applied the spermicide.
Babies that could have been kept if the rapist sperm was removed and her husbands was introduced before the egg dropped days later.

This goes on and on.

You can add all the elements you want to this but it looks like you're trying to find a scenario where one is guilty of something no matter what they do. Why do you want that?

Can the rape victim at least get the rapist "material" flushed out with some water before she is sent home?

:mmph:
Excuse me. You're the one who painted the spermicide scenario in such a way that taking action risked the life of an unborn child. So before I answer this I have to ask if you're applying that same possibility here as well. Is getting the "rapist's material flushed out with water" going to risk a fertilized egg? Because if not, I can't imagine why you'd think I have a problem with this. On the other hand I'm now suspicious that if I were to say that you'd suddenly claim it killed a baby somehow.

 

[serpentdove]

I believe a child is a gift of God no matter how it is conceived.

Yep (Ge 1:26,27; 1 Co 11:7, Jas 3:9). We are made for God (Pr 16:4, Re 4:11) not the garbage can (Pr 6:17).

 

[serpentdove]

There is no excuse for abortion. Not in the case of rape. Not in the case of incest. Not ever.

That sweet child living inside its mother, though perhaps brought about by evil and undesireable methods and circumstances, is INNOCENT and alive. It deserves a chance. It is a human being. It is a child of God.

To deny him or her that chance to grow and become something in this life because of convenience or guilt or trauma or fear is to embrace murder. It is among the most vile of acts we, as humans, are capable of committing.

It is wrong. There is no excuse that can justify the taking of an unborn child's life.

Ever.

The value of the child is infinite (Ge 2:7; 1 Co 15:45). Tink about dat. Tink about dat (Ingraham). Ec 10:14

 

[serpentdove]

The rapist should be aborted.

The baby didn't do anything wrong.

:thumb: Deut. 22:25

 

[serpentdove]

This is a matter of representation. Should the child be represented as nothing more than the product of a violent crime...

Speak out for the one who cannot speak (Prov. 31:8, GWT).

 

[serpentdove]

I can't really comment on it in a definite way. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a woman who has been raped and impregnated...

“...[W]e shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions [murder] on behalf of women.” ~ Barack Obama :Nineveh: Ex 20:13

 

[Alate_One]

Destroy a zygote, and you have destroyed what most certainly would have developed into a human being if it was allowed to follow its natural progression.

Not necessarily. Depending on the age of the woman 30% - 50% of all eggs released have fatal chromosomal abnormalities. These will not develop beyond a few cell divisions even if fertilized. A fertilized egg should not be equated with a baby.

I am not comfortable with the idea of forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child. I see little wrong with at least using the "morning after pill" since it essentially prevents pregnancy.

 

[MaryContrary]

I am not comfortable with the idea of forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child.

It's not her child in any way? It's entirely the rapist's? About 99% of rape victims who become pregnant as a result probably disagree with you, since they opt not to abort.

I see little wrong with at least using the "morning after pill" since it essentially prevents pregnancy.

What the "morning after pill" prevents is the implantation of the fertilized egg. So, if you're acknowledging those that believe the fertilized egg is a human life, you should acknowledge that as well.

 

[Alate_One]

It's not her child in any way? It's entirely the rapist's? About 99% of rape victims who become pregnant as a result probably disagree with you, since they opt not to abort.

It has 50% of the rapist's genes. If the woman wants to carry the child, fantastic. I am all for forgiveness, but that's the woman's CHOICE. I'm saying why would you want to FORCE that 1% of women to carry the baby by saying, no you can't use the morning after pill?

There's also the concept of allowing the rapist's seed to continue. If there's a genetic component to why the rapist felt it was okay to rape, that tendency could manifest in the offspring or the child's offspring.

What the "morning after pill" prevents is the implantation of the fertilized egg. So, if you're acknowledging those that believe the fertilized egg is a human life, you should acknowledge that as well.

It is living human cells with potential for forming a new individual. It is not directly equivalent to a baby, however.

I don't understand why so many Christians feel they have to assume that there's immediate and total equivalence of a ball of 100 undifferentiated cells with a living breathing child that has emotions and can feel pain. The zygote to blatocyst stage is not valueless, but it's not a child either. You want things in black and white. Biology is not black and white. Deal with it.

 

[PureX]

 

[serpentdove]

...[D]o aborted babies automatically go to heaven without a repentance requirement?

They haven't reached the age of accountability. They go to heaven after their brief visit with wicked man.

See:

Age of Accountability

 

[MaryContrary]

It has 50% of the rapist's genes. If the woman wants to carry the child, fantastic. I am all for forgiveness, but that's the woman's CHOICE. I'm saying why would you want to FORCE that 1% of women to carry the baby by saying, no you can't use the morning after pill?

There's also the concept of allowing the rapist's seed to continue. If there's a genetic component to why the rapist felt it was okay to rape, that tendency could manifest in the offspring or the child's offspring.

It is living human cells with potential for forming a new individual. It is not directly equivalent to a baby, however.

I don't understand why so many Christians feel they have to assume that there's immediate and total equivalence of a ball of 100 undifferentiated cells with a living breathing child that has emotions and can feel pain. The zygote to blatocyst stage is not valueless, but it's not a child either. You want things in black and white. Biology is not black and white. Deal with it.

You know, if you're goal is FORCE those who disagree with you to wonder if it's worth the bother continuing the discussion, you're doing a good job.

Alate, I made the point that the unborn child is as much the mother's as the rapist's and you blow that out to FORCE (capital letters!!!1!1)

Purex, I could just as easily whip up a sign that says something like, "Let me murder my babiez!"

If we can't discuss this without freaking out, then we can't discuss this at all, can we?

 

[Alate_One]

You know, if you're goal is FORCE those who disagree with you to wonder if it's worth the bother continuing the discussion, you're doing a good job.

Alate, I made the point that the unborn child is as much the mother's as the rapist's and you blow that out to FORCE (capital letters!!!1!1)

Well, that's the actual question isn't it? Should society stop women from either ending a pregnancy caused by rape or stopping it from beginning. i.e. Forcing women to carry the rapist's child.

It's a side issue to say how many women choose life and how much of the child is the woman's. You're implicitly acknowledging then, that they have a choice. Should that choice be taken away?

Should all pregnant women be watched/interned by government minders to make sure their pregnancy has the desired outcome?

How else are you going to stop something like this?

 

[PureX]

If we can't discuss this without freaking out, then we can't discuss this at all, can we?

It all comes down the the same old debate. Some people in this country want the government to force everyone else to do what they think everyone else should be doing.

And my argument is always the same:

It is not the purpose of government to enforce your or anyone else's moral imperatives. The purpose of government is to keep the peace, secure the borders, and protect our freedom. And that freedom includes the right to make our own moral decisions. Even God Himself does not enforce any moral imperatives. So I can't imagine what makes so many Americans think they should have that right, or that it should be given to the government (especially!).

But here we are, in yet another thread, reading about how the government should be forcing women to have babies against their will because some people have presumed themselves to be in charge of everyone else's moral choices. And since they can't force their will on others by themselves, they want to power of government to do what even God Himself will not do for them.

 

[serpentdove]

["American doctors and clinics do sometimes pair it with the drug mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) to produce a “medical abortion...,”" Looking to Mexico for Alternative to Abortion Clinics :dizzy:] "Should all pregnant women be watched/interned by government minders to make sure their pregnancy has the desired outcome? How else are you going to stop something like this?

Are you for 86ing children feather problem? :smokie:

”South Park - J.Lo Songs"

 

[MaryContrary]

Well, that's the actual question isn't it? Should society stop women from either ending a pregnancy caused by rape or stopping it from beginning. i.e. Forcing women to carry the rapist's child.

It's a side issue to say how many women choose life. You're implicitly acknowledging then, that they have a choice. Should that choice be taken away?

Should all pregnant women be watched/interned by government minders to make sure their pregnancy has the desired outcome?

How else are you going to stopsomething like this?

Isn't the issue we're discussing whether or not abortion is any more or less murder/not murder in the case of rape? What, then, is the purpose of jumping ahead, off topic, to discuss every wild speculation about what might happen if this or that side of the issue proves to be right?

How about sticking to the point, rather than doing all you can to insist arriving at one conclusion over the other will inevitably result in women being shackled and force-bred like animals, yeah?

It all comes down the the same old debate. Some people in this country want the government to force everyone else to do what they think everyone else should be doing.

And my argument is always the same:

It is not the purpose of government to enforce your or anyone else's moral imperatives. The purpose of government is to keep the peace, secure the borders, and protect our freedom. And that freedom includes the right to make our own moral decisions. Even God Himself does not enforce any moral imperatives. So I can't imagine what makes so many Americans think they should have that right, or that it should be given to the government (especially!).

But here we are, in yet another thread, reading about how the government should be forcing women to have babies against their will because some people have presumed themselves to be in charge of everyone else's moral choices. And since they can't force their will on others by themselves, they want to power of government to do what even God Himself will not do for them.

The point is whether or not it's murder, which the government absolutely has the right (duty, in point of fact) to force us not to commit. The point here, on this thread, is whether abortion is more or less murder/not murder in case of rape.

So, again, you're working hard to distract from the point. There's no point in this thread if all the efforts on our side of this debate are wasted with just trying to keep the discussion on track.

Edit: In fact, just never mind. It's not like I haven't been here a hundred times before. I'll just go head and give up, like everyone else has, and let you guys have the thread. So that this issue won't actually be discussed. I just don't have that kind of time to waste. Congrats, have fun. :carryon:

 

[Paoli]

The rapist should be punished.
Not the baby.

 

[PureX]

The point here, on this thread, is whether abortion is more or less murder/not murder in case of rape.

The method of conception (even by rape) would have nothing to do with whether or not abortion is murder. And the courts HAVE ALREADY DECIDED this question to the best of their ability. But those people I mentioned, the ones who think they are in charge of everyone else's moral decisions, they don't like the court's decision. So now they want to force the court to change it's decision by stacking the courts with political panderers instead of fair-minded civil jurists. They are willing to destroy our whole system of government, and trample the freedoms of their fellow citizens just to get their way.

 

[Alate_One]

Isn't the issue we're discussing whether or not abortion is any more or less murder/not murder in the case of rape? What, then, is the purpose of jumping ahead, off topic, to discuss every wild speculation about what might happen if this or that side of the issue proves to be right?

I'm not off topic or jumping ahead. The question is what about abortion in the case of rape. I'm sorry you don't like the way I'm framing the real issues.

How about sticking to the point, rather than doing all you can to insist arriving at one conclusion over the other will inevitably result in women being shackled and force-bred like animals, yeah?

That is the ultimate outcome of asserting that a zygote is a person.

Because the individual is not separate from the potential murderer (the woman). In the case of the zygote, the potential "victim" is not even visible with the naked eye so the only way to "protect" it, is to control the woman. If you REALLY think a zygote is equivalent to a baby, and you have any intention of enforcing it you're talking about government monitoring.

That's the biology of what you're dealing with. You may not like it and want to pretend that I'm "off topic", but that's reality.

The point is whether or not it's murder, which the government absolutely has the right (duty, in point of fact) to force us not to commit. The point here, on this thread, is whether abortion is more or less murder/not murder in case of rape.

I say it's not murder in any case if we're talking about the morning after pill only. Defining a group of undifferentiated cells as a person diminishes real living and breathing people.

 

[Selaphiel]

Not necessarily. Depending on the age of the woman 30% - 50% of all eggs released have fatal chromosomal abnormalities. These will not develop beyond a few cell divisions even if fertilized. A fertilized egg should not be equated with a baby.

Then the result is terminated naturally. It is not a matter of equating the fertilized egg with a baby, it is more an issue of taking the natural potentialities of the fertilized egg into question when dealing with this particular moral issue. What I reacted to was the statement that it is "just a cluster of cells". We are talking about the start of a process which, if unhindered by natural causes, will develop into a human fetus.

It is not the purpose of government to enforce your or anyone else's moral imperatives. The purpose of government is to keep the peace, secure the borders, and protect our freedom. And that freedom includes the right to make our own moral decisions.

That is a bit black and white isn't it? Governments do force certain moral imperatives. It also protects the freedom of its citizens, the question here is whether the range of freedom should include the right to end a life that is beginning in the womb. The question is when the fundamental rights of a human being begins. You cannot simply portray pro-life people as someone who wants to restrict the freedom of women. That is a strawman, they think the right to live applies to the developing fetus, a right they think trumps a woman's choice to end her pregnancy. That is something you need to recognize even if you personally disagree with it.