Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talk of "rape" and "consent" really have nothing to do with the abortion argument. It's part of the cult of female victim-hood that people use because they have no argument.
Sex isn't something that happens to women. 99% of the time, women get pregnant not because they were raped, nor because they gave in to a man's advances("consent"), but because they actively pursue sex with men and get knocked up.
Should they have to give birth to the children they willfully create? Yes.
Can I ask what sex you are?
And why does consent & rape have nothing to do with abortion??
Do you believe if a woman is raped that she should keep the baby if she is pregnant? What if it is a young girl, around 13 or 14 years old? Should they also keep a baby if they have been raped?
And why does consent & rape have nothing to do with abortion??
The argument is unrelated to female victimization (rape). That's actually a different issue that has nothing to do with abortion in general. The number of pregnancies that result from rape are miniscule, and are not at the crux of the argument.
"Consent" is a loaded term, rape-related terminology, implying that women only have sex when they agree to it or submit to the advances of men.
Sex and pregnancy don't happen to women. In general, women get pregnant as a result of their own actions because they pursue sex with men.
Should they be allowed to kill the children they create? No.
Talk of "rape" and "consent" really have nothing to do with the abortion argument. It's part of the cult of female victim-hood that people use because they have no argument.
Sex isn't something that happens to women. 99% of the time, women get pregnant not because they were raped, nor because they gave in to a man's advances("consent"), but because they actively pursue sex with men and get knocked up.
Should they have to give birth to the children they willfully create? Yes.
If you wan't to have sex without pregnancy, that's what contraceptives are for. They've been around for quite some time now and they work great. Using contraceptives is taking responsibility.
Killing unborn children after they are conceived because they aren't convenient for you is completely different and should not be legal in a civilized world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone
Should they have to give birth to the children they willfully create? Yes.
Neither of these comments are actual arguments for why abortion is wrong. They are just emphatic restatements of "Abortion is wrong."
You should address the serious arguments that have been put forth for why abortion is not wrong rather than simply repeating "Abortion is wrong."
On moral grounds I don't agree with abortions with a few exceptions such as rape, mother is in danger of dying, or the baby will be born with serious birth defects/disorders. That being said I still think it should be legal, however the time period should be shortened to about 8 weeks, after that the fetus clearly looks like a baby, however small it maybe and it's enough time for the would be mother to find out that she is pregnant. Also I think there should be more programs that prevent abortions from happening, such as payed maternity/family leave. There should also be more funding to orphanages and I think there should be an option where a mother has her child live in one or something similar for several years with visitations until she is financially stable enough to afford raising a child. As well as programs that help these mothers to get an education and jobs. Basically mothers should have more options than just the 3 that are advocated today.
The pro-life argument is essentially a religious argument. If there is no god that made mankind in his image, then there is nothing inherently (independent of its features) valuable about human life. Human life is instead simply valuable due to the features it includes -- consciousness, interests, etc. Thus, human life that does not include these features is not intrinsically valuable. Fetuses prior to a certain point do not have any morally relevant features. They are collections of matter organized in a certain way, but they do not amount to persons because they are not conscious. They have no more intrinsic moral worth than a rock.
Religious folks need to be honest: the only argument they have against abortion is a religious one. Considering there is no good argument in favor of the existence of their god, there is no good argument in favor of their stance on abortion.
All people have the right to life, including the unborn. It's as simple as that.
Is that not a fundamental human right?
No. If a person is hooked up to life support because he or she is brain dead, it is not a moral crime to pull the plug and end that person's life. There is no sense in which the fetus is any more "alive" than such a person. What a fetus and a brain dead person do have in common, however, is a lack of consciousness.
The concept of life is irrelevant. What matters is consciousness. Consciousness is a requirement in order for us to have ethical obligations to another being.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
