The debate "Abortion is acceptable for pregnant rape victims." was started by
January 28, 2015, 10:57 pm.
48 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
sickboyblonde posted 3 arguments, Sosocratese posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Kirito posted 2 arguments, Vigilante posted 5 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, JakobBoghora posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
doostyne, mansi, akshay58165, sickboyblonde, mdavis1309, river93x, wmd, true_debate_life, Ornes, PsychDave, slash606, kennediharris515, DeathsDespair15, Vikram, Carlitosj41, S2Sethi, Sasha777, jessicaS02, invincible_01, resiliently, YoanaPetrova, SwaggerPoptart and 26 visitors agree.
Tactial_Mind, Vigilante, parbelsaha, simplykk, Kirito, ayleine, Sosocratese, ty, denmob, DebaterKing, Dbass24, Hollister_boy, DB8101, JakobBoghora, blakelovesjesus, Thejw, hollieg and 5 visitors disagree.
I dont want to kill embryo if I am raped by a female. I would like to raise family. And when offspring grows up we can have a threesome.
The suicide argument
You are committing a logical fallacy know as the slippery slope argument. The reason this kind of argument is logically incorrect is because your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow your premise. Allowing someone, who is of sound mind, to take their own life in light of great, unavoidable suffering doesn't necessarily lead to any of the claims you have made. The same arguments to justify one don't apply to the other.
The fetus argument
While a fetus has a beating heart early in their development, I don't know that I would consider it a person at that stage. We already differentiate between biological, clinical, and brain death. Brain death is already used as a legal declaration of death. This means that we look at a person as someone who has the capacities of the human animal. Simply because a hearth beat is present doesn't constitute a person. It is the brain that gives us our humanity, it our ability to be aware of our world and our place within it that defines us. A fetus has no such capabilities. It has the potential, but at the fetus doesn't develop consciousness until week 24-28. I would say it is reasonable to argue that this is when we can define a fetus as a person. Just like we call a larva a larva and not a butterfly until it undergoes it's metamorphosis.
you have an interesting way of looking at things, and they are good arguments.
the problem you have is not seeing the bigger picture, the chain reactions involved.
yes though it sounds harsh, a murder charge would be treated as a murder charge.
as any attempted murder it must be stopped.
the 'fetus' issue, you haven't explained what miracle takes place that magically changes the 'fetus' within a day into a human child.......and suddenly immune from abortion?
it always has been a child or has never been one, because nothing changes in in that time.
the 'fetus's' heart starts beating at 6 weeks old, the time most mothers find out that they are pregnant.
why do we acknowledge a person to be dead when their heart stops beating...but won't acknowledge these children to be alive when they're heart starts beating?
would you say it was right for the mother to kill the child when it's born?
what changes to make it wrong?
your using the wrong argument when you compare the child to body parts, because obviously it's not just another body part, when it's human, it is under the protection of the law, so these things are out of the mothers hands, if she does not want the child than that is understandable of course, that choice is hers.
but if people base the taking of a life due to others feelings, than that throws the area into uncertainty and second guesses.
life is to precious to be played with.
suicide, we make taking our lives as a personal choice?
there is a reason why this is illegal, because once again it's about the bigger picture, where is the line?
if we lose value for human life than we will lose a lot more human lives.
murders? genocide? mass suicide? the chain reactions that will result in the future would be catastrophic.
So you would force a mother under duress to carry that fetus to term? Even go so far as to punish her for aborting a fetus that is a result of rape.... That's an interesting stance to take.
I?m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn?t a life, as that?s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I?ll be brief:
A fetus can?t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother?s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the ?right to life? doesn?t imply a right to use somebody else?s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else?s life. Choosing to not rent out your uterus is really no different, especially since the pregnancy was not the choice of the mother, nor was she a consenting person in the act that led to this pregnancy. Why does the the "right" of the fetus outweigh the right of the mother all of a sudden?
The ?right to life? also doesn?t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else?s life or mental well-being. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.
A ?right to life? is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else?s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?
The suicide argument
Suicide due to mental illness isn't acceptable because the person is thought to not be of sound mind to make those decisions. However, when a person is faced with terminal life events how is suicide not an acceptable course of action. They are of sound mind. They have accepted the inevitability of their fate, they know the suffering that will definitely occur and choose to not partake in that portion of their life? Their death is inevitable and harsh, how does skipping that last portion threaten the sanctity of life one bit?
suicide is generally the result of extreme depression, or another mental issue that they are dealing with at the time, which affects their ability to make lifes descisions.
the laws that are in place are to protect those people from themselves during these times, but that's another subject.
but to say that the child is only entitled to human rights when it leaves it's mothers womb would be denying it was human at all until birth, which we both know isn't true.
I respect yours as well, your points are interesting and I see where your coming from. :)
@vigilate yes, actually. I do believe suicide is okay. I'm not religious, I don't bite when it comes to religious "morals"/ guidelines. Technically, it is not its own person until it is out of its mother's womb. It is still a part if the mother. A chicken egg is not a chicken. see the correlation? I respect your argument because you have valid opinions and you're entitled to them, however, I humbly disagree.
in that case sickboyblonde, that makes suicide perfectly alright since that's just the person's own body there as well.
see the problem?
if the mother has a life inside her (by her choice or not), then as a citizen you are required to follow the law which if you killed that life then it is an illegal action and morally incorrect.
the 'fetus' as you call it is still a child and human being, so is under the protection of the law.
@vigilate It doesn't really matter whatever you think the fetus's right is. haven't you ever heard of bodily integrity? Every human being has the right to own their own body. A fetus is part of a woman's body therefore that woman has the right to abort a fetus they are carrying.
if a child is a child then it has always been one, a fetus can't magically within a few days change something that would recognize it as a human being, that isn't logical whatsoever.
humans will mourn a newborn more than a fetus of course because we always will miss what we see in front of us more than what we don't see.
but what our feelings a don't change the fact.
that is a hard question, but I think that if this child is recognized as one then the charge of murder would apply to the mother if she carried out her intent.
yes, as like any attempted murder you would try and stop the mother from carrying it out, even if it requires force.
when the child is born than it will no longer be the mothers problem since it would be wrong to leave the child with her if she was so against it.
I would say the law of murder would apply.
people who carry out the abortions are committing genocide everyday
No, I never said a baby doesn't have the right, I asked what gives a fetus the right? I question the notion that just because something has the potential to be a viable organism it automatically has the right to live. We don't mourne miscarriages in the first trimester the same way we do a 1 day old baby's death, it's a common occurrence. So we already treat the death of a fetus the same as that if a baby.
The notion of applying the term right to a fetus is also strange. A right is the aggregate of the capacities, powers, liberties, and privileges by which a claim is secured. A fetus has no aggregate of capacities, it has the potential of capacities, same with powers, liberties....What makes a human being a human being is a debate onto itself of course, and perhaps one that needs to be had, but for now, I'm gonna move on the the other half of the debate, the mother.
I questioned the neglect of the mother's right to choose whether or not to carry the fetus to term. As I asked, how far would you go in order to force a mother to carry her child to term? Would you force feed her if she chose to starve the fetus rather than have a medical abortion? Would you keep her hands tied and remove all wire clothes hangers if she threatened to do it herself? Would you keep her from trying anything but a medical abortion? Would you then choose to punish her if she did finally succeed?
ok so your saying that the baby has not ability to live so has not the right......with that kind of reasoning what of old people, newborns, sick people ect, if we relyed on you for the legal system we would be extinct.
to kill the fetus now and it's called abortion but kill it 8 months later and it's called murder.......and yet that baby is still just as defenceless when it's born as it was in the womb.......does your theory still apply there?
you can see that isn't logical.
you are all saying while it's a fetus and so forth.
is there proof that the child does not have anything as a fetus mentally to what it has a few months later?
the baby is still perfecting itself.
I don't know what miracle would occur that drastically changes a 'fetus' into a human child all within a couple of days.....but NOW it would be considered murder since they've stuck the human sticker on it of course!
who has the right to decide when that child's a child!
it either is or it isn't, it's not going to change by popular demand!
the child has a much rights as you and I having this conversation, in fact more don't you think, since they are the victim of circumstances.
it's terrible when someone is raped, but this child is the most innocent out of everyone in the whole situation, but is victimized for someone's peace of mind........you don't find that sickening?
You are making a couple of really big assumptions here. First, why does the child have a right to live? It can't support itself outside of the uterus (assuming that it's less than 21 weeks old). If it doesn't have the ability to live, what gives it the right to live? Would you contest that someone with a bummed heart be kept of life support indefinitely because they have a right to live even though they don't have the ability? What about the mother's right to not want to support that child during pregnancy? Doesn't she have the right to deny the child that or do you force her?
If you force her, how far do you go? Do you resort to force feeding should she decide not to eat or drink? If she smokes and drinks do you force her to stop that? I think you know where I'm going with this...
first of all, its a fetus buddy. Not a child. It sucks when an abortion needs to happen because it truly is awful to kill a living thing. However, to force a woman who has been raped to raise a child that was sprouted from a traumatizing event in her life is, quite simply, wrong. Who are you to say at that point a woman should then raise a bastard son? Its not fair to the mother nor the child. The idea that a woman should be forced to raise a unwanted child is utterly regressive.
In doing so even if it was a rapist's child you are still denying that child the right to live. Put yourself in that child's position. Would you want someone to kill you before you have a say in it? Even though that child should not have been concieved the way it was the child still has a right to live. Who knows the child might one day become a leader in an anti-rape charity or program.