The debate "Abortion is acceptable in some cases such as rape" was started by
September 14, 2018, 10:09 pm.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 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.
DrMrDaniel posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Fowling posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
KateLynn, DrMrDaniel, TheExistentialist, nariklama, tenyiyi and 20 visitors agree.
Fowling, AGustafson, TheNewHuman, YEET, hollieg and 9 visitors disagree.
potential to be human will potentially have rights when it is a human. in my view, it's not a *person* until the brain is activated and thinking/feeling starts.
however, if you do feel that it is a person, and killing it is murder... I dont see how the sins of a parent should determine its right to life. being raped doesnt sound like an excuse to murder anyone (except maybe the rapist, but thats a different discussion.)
I wouldn't go as far as to consider semen or unfertilized eggs potential humans... I only mean an egg that has been fertilized and is on its course to create a human baby naturally... I think I wouldn't even consider it an abortion at any stage before that anyway; In this sense all forms of protection or plan B can't be considered abortions.
So as a counter extreme, how about after a month have passed, or two months, isn't that a potential human being almost certain to exist?
Well, the question then becomes at what point does "potential" no longer grant a right to life? Also, by what standard are we assigning rights, is it simply by virtue of having human DNA, does that make the colon as much of a person as a fetus? Do we use something esoteric like the concept of a soul? Which in turn begs the question about whether or not we want theocratic concepts to dictate our legal system? Is plan B not a destruction of potential life then too? Is masturbating not the same as killing millions of potential lives? In IVF procedures multiple eggs are fertilized at once, a few are implanted and a few are frozen in case the first set don't take. If the mother becomes pregnant, the remaining fertilized eggs are destroyed, so should the mother be forced to carry each fertilized egg to term?
Is the "potential" of personhood really enough to grant it? If it is, then all IVF procedures are equal to abortions and no one should be able to undergo such a procedure; all fetal stem cell research (including cloned lines) are equal to abortions. It would also mean that all abortions must be illegal including those that would be medically necessary to save the mother's life and those abortions done in instances of rape. We don't kill someone in order to procure organs even if it would save multiple lives. By extension, if we bestow personhood on a fetus with the potential for life, we'd have to accept the death of the mother in order to protect the rights of the fetus. By that same line of reasoning, we'd have to force a mother to carry the product of rape to term.
We'd also have to forcefeed mothers who tried to get rid of a baby by refusing to eat, etc...
If someone is undeserving of a child, then they shouldn't have a child.
I can't really stand against choice, that's unspoken and established ... But just for the sake of discussion, what about the idea that the potential baby has a right to exist and live up to their potential just as much as the mother does?