Why not force the rapist to take care of the baby and let the woman do as she pleases?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision
- Thread starter Ericzander
- Start date
- Views 74,939
- Replies 1,931
- Likes 9
Why not force the rapist to take care of the baby and let the woman do as she pleases?
That only works if you manage to catch the rapist, so that solution doesn't work in all situations.
Does it matter though? Pro-lifers don't care about extenuating circumstances, so not being able to find the rape daddy should be inconsequential as well, right?
At least until we get to the point that someone points out that this am unequatable comparison, avoiding the fact that this same logic is how every pro-lifer approaches any pro-choice argument.
So Republicans just voted against feeding the babies they are forcing you to have?
It is possible to sympathize with a child despite the actions of its father. Perhaps even in spite of the actions of the father. The offense was in the crime itself. I also think it is unreasonable to expect the mother to be okay with it. Both mother and child can be seen as victims, but the child can still be a good thing to the mother and its community.
People who commit bad acts aren't the only ones that live with the consequences.
Last edited by tabzer,
Republicans would say it's your responsibility to create a stable financial situation for yourself before you have children, because it's not their responsibility to feed your family. It's yours.
They don't seem to have a satisfactory answer for how to handle cases of rape and other unwanted pregnancies. Even if the sex is consensual and his condom breaks or her IUD fails, the reply is just, "Too bad! You shouldn't have had sex! See you in 18 years!"
That's a very pro-life attitude to have, I'm sure Jesus is proud
I didn't say I was a Republican. I said that's what a Republican would say. You must understand the arguments on all sides of an issue before you can have an informed opinion of your own. If you don't, the opposition will be able to easily poke holes in your case.
Of course. I can't speak for others, but please don't assume I lack all sympathy for children of any kind. However, even by just asking a woman to carry that kind of weight, even moreso forcing her to do it, to me is more of an injustice than eliminating something that, scientifically proven, has little to no brain movement during the early stages of pregnancy.
A common theme seems to be that pro- choicers pack sympathy for the fetus, but from what I've seen personally that's far from the truth. One can sympathize and still be willing to terminate because of the current state of environment, knowing what the child has to expect from the moment of conception onward.
Consequences also come in many forms. Just because a woman terminates her pregnancy doesn't mean she's absolved of consequences. Even aside from the metaphorical Scarlet Letter she dons, think about all the hormonal changes, the emotional and mental wear and tear on a person. Some abortions still lead to the death of the mother, even in cases where it was assured that the abortion was needed to save the mothers life. Just because they don't get to raise the child doesn't mean they're consequence free.
My position was against the stigmatization of children (and mothers) involved by rape. I don't think that carrying the child to term is sympathetic to rape. My comment about consequences was about how victims have unpleasant realities to deal with, not an attempt in pursuing justice.
Nobody is talking about murdering babies, the conversation is about aborting a pregnancy.
If you are either having a different conversation, or using words incorrectly then this isn't going to get anywhere.
Sure, though if this thread is anything to go by they will just straw man you anyway.
It's important to take intended meaning into account. Although it's technically correct to say a fetus is not a baby, that's not what anti-abortion people are getting at, so trying to discredit their argument on a technicality is not persuasive.
When anti-abortion people say abortion is the same as killing babies, what they mean is that they consider a fetus to be a person, just as a baby is a person. The key question is, "At what point do a sperm and egg become a person?" A fetus isn't a baby, but it might be considered a person depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed and what your criteria are for personhood. If you think a fetus is a person, then you can only conclude that killing it is wrong. If it's not a person yet, you could conclude that killing it is acceptable.
You’re not very good at this. You grab a saw with the intention of cutting the opponent down, but you just end up sawing your own leg off instead and falling flat. You *just* said, not 5 posts ago, that people who are opposed to abortion should pay for the unwanted children who end up in this world as a result of their mothers being unable to abort them. Now, conveniently, you tell us that they already do (even though I outlined that it is not encumbent on them to do so, logically speaking). Is there anything else you’d like to undercut in your argument before we proceed? For the record, I’m all for medical procedures being safe, clean and done by professionals. I noticed that you dropped the “rare” part of the “safe, legal and rare” mantra usually associated with the abortion debate. Are we still on-board with the rare bit, or are we feeling unusually honest today?
I disagree. You do not create policy to cater to the exception, you make general rules *with* exceptions. You’re not primarily concerned with the 2% that we can generally agree on (with very few dissenting voices, although they do exist), you’re primarily concerned with the 98%. We’re not taking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, we’re talking about forgetting about the baby in the tub for the sake of saving the rubber ducky.
Having sex carries the inherent possibility of causing a pregnancy - this is pretty much priced into the equation. We take reasonable precautions to prevent that (or we should, if we don’t want unwanted pregnancies), but the failure of those precautions does not transfer the responsibility onto third-parties. Similarly, driving carries the inherent risk of death or injury. We generally try to drive responsibly, but we can’t control for every variable and accidents do happen. That doesn’t transfer the responsibility onto the rest of society - somebody caused the accident, be it by negligence or an unfortunate twist of fate. It’s not my fault, and I don’t see any convincing reason why I should be burdened with the consequences of somebody else’s failure to drive safely.
Last edited by Foxi4,
Just trying to stop them being disingenuous. Because until they stop doing that, the debate won't move forward.
Which makes me think they don't want the debate to move forward.
Crossing the road carries the possibility of getting run over. We don't force people into the ultimate conclusion.
If a pregnancy is caused, then what is the reason for forcing them to go full term? If the person abstained or their contraception worked, then the potential baby would not exist either.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
32GBs is the baseline for 4K video editing these days and lots of recommendations for 64GBs but for games 16,GBs is honestly plenty for a long time. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Some sort of police thing going on near me lol "Get out of the car with your hands up and walk backwards towards us" over a loud speaker thing
-
-
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
