A Rapists' Baby

I didn't want to **** up an unrelated thread but wanted to explore people's thoughts and reasoning. Both pro-life and pro-choice people, except some hard core pro-lifers, want to have an exeption to proposed abortion bans for a child that is the result of a rape.

If a rapists' baby is born, is it still ok to kill it later because it's still a rapists' baby? Maybe it's ok to treat it as a 2nd class citizen all it's life?

For the pro-lifers: Why is the rapist's child worth less than any other baby?
For pro-choicers: Why do you insist on these exceptions for abortion laws? You might be ok with a ban after 20 weeks or whatever but still insist that a rapists' baby can be aborted at any time. Again, why do you view this child differently?

 

Ah nope.

 

It's got nothing to do with the baby and everything to do with the woman. It's sad that we even have to make these specific exceptions, but in this case it's done because rape removes the woman's choice in both the intercourse and the resulting pregnancy. Requiring that woman to then carry that child to term and give birth is barbaric.

 

3 to 4 months into the pregnancy is around where I think the line should be drawn except in cases where the mother's life is at heightened risk or the fetus has some serious defect, whether it is a rape baby or not.

 

And that’s where most people are on this subject. A pity the moral absolutists vs the body absolutists have to complicate what really is a fairly simple issue

 

no, republican can not kill babies after they are born

but yes, a woman or little girl that is raped, can decide to not give birth to the rapist's baby

 

that is like saying, we should support rape, cause without rape, some children would not be born

even a child born of rape doesn't support raping women and little girls, even though if not for that crime, they would never of been born

it should be a crime to force a rape victim to have their rapists baby

 

Do you know this? That's about where I'm at too.

I've heard this before and I understand that the woman's choice was taken away. That doesn't negate the fact that you are deeming this new human's life as being less than. What gives anyone the right to classify one life as being worth less than the other life based on the grounds that the father was an a$$hole? Should other exceptions be made for other children, that were not the product of rape, but where the father was simply an a$$hole?

 

exactly, and no new laws needed as 99.9% of abortions occur before that

 

So going with your logic, no new laws are needed for AR-15s because 99.99% of AR-15s are not used to commit a murder,
99.99% of drunk drivers do not hurt anyone, etc.

 

if ar-15 mass murders were as small a percent, yes, that would be true

if the ar-15 was grown inside ones body, they could abort it too

as far as drunk driving, I think people should be arrested for wreckless driving and breaking actual laws, I think arresting someone for sleeping off their drunkenness in the front seat should not be a crime

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx

 

Have there been cases where a woman was raped and impregnated and waited till the 8th month, for ex., to abort? I'd never heard anyone say a fetus created from a rape should be able to be aborted at "any time".
Abortion should be allowed up to 21 weeks. After that ONLY in cases where the fetus becomes non-viable or mothers life is at risk.

 

Thanks! Too bad our leaders are bitch*es for the extremes.

 

The topic is not about that. It's about why people propose exceptions for rape and what their rationale is. I'm thinking that it's simply driven by feelings for the mother and neither side that offers up this exception gives a crap about the baby. So, at what point do people start giving a crap about a rapists' baby (if ever)?

 

My guess...and I'm just spitballing here....but I would think most women don't want to have a baby out of hate and violence. Most want one of love. You know, where the father of the baby is a loving husband and not a violent rapist.

 

Are we talking about the law or personal opinion?

Women have already made up their minds abortion is a woman's personal business. They/'re not going to give in, either.

 

This will eventually end up where we all know it's going: each women decides the matter for herself.

If you care about fetuses, you can help make sure pregnant women don't face poverty if they give birth.

 

Of course the baby is as valuable as any other, but the question here, is "who decides" and clearly these referendums are showing that folks want to right to decide for themselves, even if the decision is one you or I would disagree with.

Here is the decision tree

1. Federal government decides, if it's empowered to do so. Nothing constitutionally or legislatively so empowers them,
2. The State may decide. Where States have decided, their decision rules.
3. Where States have not taken over the decision, it's up to the people to decide.

The pattern that I'm seeing in these State Constitutional Referendums is that folks seem to be voting for number 3. Now once a baby is born, there is deep tradition, legislation, and case law to support multiple overlapping legal and constitutional protections.

 

They only "care" about the fetus. Once it's born they couldn't give a crap about it.

 

Simple reading comprehension would’ve answered your question for you and as to your second statement that is irrelevant and thus worthless since it’s more than just women who influence law and policy making

 

What gives us the right to classify anything regarding any kind of life at all? Why do we get to decide that we can eat cows, pigs, and chickens and that it's perfectly fine to raise them in god awful conditions on factory farms? Why do we get to decide that we can hunt animals purely for sport, and then stuff their carcasses full of whatever and hang them on our walls for display?

Because we as humans decided we could, we make all the rules, and there's no higher authority or power to stop us. So if we can make all kinds of subjective decisions regarding life, from the most simple to the most advanced, there's no inherent reason why a woman should not have a say in what gets to be in and stay in her uterus. The fetus has no rights until birth when it becomes a born child.

And finally, why are we even getting involved in the "why" part of a woman getting an abortion in the first place? That's not anyone's business but hers.

 

Yes, if I was simple, I probably would have understood your position.

I have some news for you males who don't "get it"--women will never go along with your laws banning abortion. You can pass all the laws you like. Maybe you're married or know some women will explain it to you.

 

A woman should be able to choose as it is her body until the fetus is viable and not reliant on her body to exist.

Once it exits her body she no longer has this choice.

Question for you — who the **** do people think they are to be able to force a woman to be an unwilling incubator to the state?

 

Oh trust me, you’ve got plenty of simple. Your view is so simple you think women are the simplest of them all and think as one block. like cows, perhaps?


So….why do you think women aren’t capable of disagreeing with each other? Why do you think they are so simple that they’re all the same? Why do you think you need to speak up for them, are they too stupid to speak up for themselves? Or are you just trying to get laid?