Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The rape exception

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:01:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm interested in having a discussion and possibly a debate with someone who considers them self to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" but does NOT think there should be an exception to a ban on abortions for women whose pregnancy is the result of a "rape."

Are any of you interested?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 1:47:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rape babies are the spawn of evil, they do not deserve to live.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 1:49:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 1:47:17 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rape babies are the spawn of evil, they do not deserve to live.

Are you being facetious or is this real?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 2:15:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand the rape exception. If you are going to say that abortion is murder, what makes it different to abort a rape baby?

You'd think that those against abortion would encourage adoption instead.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.
Rob
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 5:49:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well personally I would prefer to just remove the embryo so that they can be inserted into the bodies of people who wish to have babies but cannot get pregnant naturally, incubated in machines to serve a similar purpose, or to serve for scientific experimentation. But if this is not available I can be fine with abortion, I don't necessarily agree with abortion but then again I am fine with suicide, cannibalism, and war so who am I to judge, it's your parasite so the decision is yours, just don't cry afterwards.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 6:31:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 11:01:49 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I'm interested in having a discussion and possibly a debate with someone who considers them self to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" but does NOT think there should be an exception to a ban on abortions for women whose pregnancy is the result of a "rape."

Are any of you interested?

I actually find the "no exception" stance to be much more morally consistent than "no abortion except rape."

If you want to be pro-life and not just anti-woman/choice, then you main concern should be the existence of life. Whether or not a woman is raped is irellevant.

It is only when the fence-sitters toss in an "oh, we don't care about extinguishing life if it means diminished choice for the mother."

In my opinion, you are either all one way, all the other, or your justification of abortion should not rely on a defense of human life.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:16:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:15:44 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Well it sounds like there are a few takers, then.

Not really....

I asked for a fellow "pro-lifer" or an anti-abort to step up to the challenge.

I believe I can Constitutionally defend the "rape exception" to a ban on elective abortions. I'm hoping I can get a pro-lifer to debate me on the issue because the rape exception is a major fracture that divides the pro-life anti-abortion movement.... and it would be nice to have a debate on record to send people to so that they can consider both sides. (for and against)

So, I ask again.... "Are there any Pro-Lifers that would like to debate the issues with me?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 8:12:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 5:49:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Well personally I would prefer to just remove the embryo so that they can be inserted into the bodies of people who wish to have babies but cannot get pregnant naturally, incubated in machines to serve a similar purpose, or to serve for scientific experimentation. But if this is not available I can be fine with abortion, I don't necessarily agree with abortion but then again I am fine with suicide, cannibalism, and war so who am I to judge, it's your parasite so the decision is yours, just don't cry afterwards.

All in all I think abortion is a waste of a good embryo, putting the embryo on ice on the other hand seems to be far more effective in my honest opinion, in some instances the parent[s] wants to have the child but simply can't afford to keep it at that moment but this could allow them to have the child at a date more suitable. This could even help in situations in which the mother wouldn't be able to survive child birth, or when the father wants to have the child but the mother does not the mother will simply lose all rights to the child and the father can go about raising it.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 9:02:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."

+1
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 12:49:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

That was excellent!
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 1:37:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really would like to debate a pro-lifer or fellow "anti-abort" on this (the rape exception).

Any takers?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 2:45:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 9:02:23 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."

+1

Well it comes to the non-aggression principle. If the fetus is invited (through consensual sex), then to have an abortion would be to violate the non-aggression principle. However, if the fetus is not-invited (through rape) then an abortion would not violate the non-aggression principle.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 6:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 2:45:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/1/2011 9:02:23 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."

+1

Well it comes to the non-aggression principle. If the fetus is invited (through consensual sex), then to have an abortion would be to violate the non-aggression principle. However, if the fetus is not-invited (through rape) then an abortion would not violate the non-aggression principle.

The fetus doesn't make any act of aggression. It's a sperm and egg.

If you want to say "the fetus is not a living entity" then I can understand applying the non-aggression principle. However, the fetus did nothing other than exist.

You could just as easily apply that reasoning to a two year old child created due to rape. The baby wasn't invited, so there's no problem in killing it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 6:20:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 6:01:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/2/2011 2:45:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/1/2011 9:02:23 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."

+1

Well it comes to the non-aggression principle. If the fetus is invited (through consensual sex), then to have an abortion would be to violate the non-aggression principle. However, if the fetus is not-invited (through rape) then an abortion would not violate the non-aggression principle.

The fetus doesn't make any act of aggression. It's a sperm and egg.

Aggression meaning that it is violating the mother's property rights. Many DDO users have successful argued the case for abortion even in the case if the fetus is considered a living creature.

If you want to say "the fetus is not a living entity" then I can understand applying the non-aggression principle. However, the fetus did nothing other than exist.

It's agression of the women's body.

You could just as easily apply that reasoning to a two year old child created due to rape. The baby wasn't invited, so there's no problem in killing it.

Well, at that point you can just set it up for adoption rather than kill it :p
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 7:53:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I hope conscientious vegetarians are not pro-abortion. I think there would be some hypocrisy there.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 7:54:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 7:53:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I hope conscientious vegetarians are not pro-abortion. I think there would be some hypocrisy there.

One would have quite a tough time proving cows more deserving of life than an unborn human.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 7:54:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:53:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I hope conscientious vegetarians are not pro-abortion. I think there would be some hypocrisy there.

One would have quite a tough time proving cows more deserving of life than an unborn human.

Why?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 2:15:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't understand the rape exception. If you are going to say that abortion is murder, what makes it different to abort a rape baby?

You'd think that those against abortion would encourage adoption instead.

I'll tell you how it makes sense to people. It's because pro-lifers have never been about protecting life or saving babies or whatever. That is a ruse they create for themselves to mask the sub-conscious reasoning they have behind their unjust policies. Pro-life has always been about the conservative mentality of harsh responsibility. Behind the curtain, pro-life is all about people dealing with the consequence of sexual immorality. In the case of rape, that is changed because it is no longer their fault.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 8:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 8:36:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/30/2011 2:15:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't understand the rape exception. If you are going to say that abortion is murder, what makes it different to abort a rape baby?

You'd think that those against abortion would encourage adoption instead.

I'll tell you how it makes sense to people. It's because pro-lifers have never been about protecting life or saving babies or whatever. That is a ruse they create for themselves to mask the sub-conscious reasoning they have behind their unjust policies. Pro-life has always been about the conservative mentality of harsh responsibility. Behind the curtain, pro-life is all about people dealing with the consequence of sexual immorality. In the case of rape, that is changed because it is no longer their fault.

Last I checked, abortions cost money.

That be a consequence.

No, I think most "pro-lifers" just don't put too much thought into their position. Not that many people really do.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 2:57:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 6:20:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/2/2011 6:01:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/2/2011 2:45:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/1/2011 9:02:23 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:22:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 3:47:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Some on the right are enamoured by this concept of responsibility when it comes to abortion. If you didn't make the choice to have sex, you're less obligated to carry through with the pregnancy.

In my view, that's fairly hypocritical. Either you say an embryo is alive and therefore the government interest can overrides the mother's ability to choose or not. "Responsibility" is irrelevant if you want to say the embryo is alive.

Personally, I think it is very reflective of the power struggle that really tends to undlies this debate. It's all about "stoppin them whores from procreatin' all over and not inna kitchen" not "saving lives."

+1

Well it comes to the non-aggression principle. If the fetus is invited (through consensual sex), then to have an abortion would be to violate the non-aggression principle. However, if the fetus is not-invited (through rape) then an abortion would not violate the non-aggression principle.

The fetus doesn't make any act of aggression. It's a sperm and egg.

Aggression meaning that it is violating the mother's property rights. Many DDO users have successful argued the case for abortion even in the case if the fetus is considered a living creature.


If you want to say "the fetus is not a living entity" then I can understand applying the non-aggression principle. However, the fetus did nothing other than exist.

It's agression of the women's body.

You could just as easily apply that reasoning to a two year old child created due to rape. The baby wasn't invited, so there's no problem in killing it.

Well, at that point you can just set it up for adoption rather than kill it :p

The fact that you COULD set the baby up for adoption at two years old is irrelevant.

This is about assuming the fetus has a right to life. Unless there is some difference between how pro-lifers define "alive" for an embryo and a two-year old, abortion is equivalent to the murder of a small child.

The rapist is the one who violated non-aggression. The fetus is the innocent result. Non-aggression should be focused on punishing the rapist.

The fetus has done NOTHING other than be a drain on the mothers resources. Yet rape exception pro-lifers condemn it to death. You haven't solved the hypocracy. Instead, you selectively apply "the fetus makes acts of aggression towards a woman body" to the cases where the rapist, not the fetus, is the aggressor. A fetus is ALWAYS a drain on the mother and in many cases can result in death.

In many other cases, women have children they did not expect or want. The fetuses are a drain of resources. Under the "fetus acts with aggression" concept, the fetus can be killed.

If anything, your argument for the rape exception is even more hypocritical. You are sentencing the fetus to death because it acts in a manner which allows it to survive nine months.

Many women, especially in third world countries, DIE from childbirth. If anything, THAT justifies murdering the child. You, however, say the act of fetal development itself is "aggression."

Remember, we aren't talking about the rapist and his aggression. This is the aggression of the entity which combines sperm and egg.

My point is that the rape exception is incompatible with holding an eight-celled blastocyst to the same standard of "life" as a newborn child.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 7:07:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 8:12:10 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 9/30/2011 5:49:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Well personally I would prefer to just remove the embryo so that they can be inserted into the bodies of people who wish to have babies but cannot get pregnant naturally, incubated in machines to serve a similar purpose, or to serve for scientific experimentation. But if this is not available I can be fine with abortion, I don't necessarily agree with abortion but then again I am fine with suicide, cannibalism, and war so who am I to judge, it's your parasite so the decision is yours, just don't cry afterwards.

All in all I think abortion is a waste of a good embryo, putting the embryo on ice on the other hand seems to be far more effective in my honest opinion, in some instances the parent[s] wants to have the child but simply can't afford to keep it at that moment but this could allow them to have the child at a date more suitable. This could even help in situations in which the mother wouldn't be able to survive child birth, or when the father wants to have the child but the mother does not the mother will simply lose all rights to the child and the father can go about raising it.

Anyone want to comment? I'm starting to feel lonely.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply give all women a 4-5 week window of oppurtunity to make the decision to abort a fetus for any reason that was the result of any sort of sexual encounter whether it be consensual or non-consensual? I mean, I see the logic in being against abortion because after a month or so the fetus develops human organs, human nervous system, heartbeat, etc, but before then it's simply a clump of cells.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 8:14:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 7:53:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I hope conscientious vegetarians are not pro-abortion. I think there would be some hypocrisy there.

Why?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 8:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 8:14:24 PM, seraine wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:53:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/2/2011 7:51:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
For fvcks sake, a newborn baby is hardly developed enough to know which way it is taking a sh!t, why care about something that hasn't been born yet?

I fvcking hate babies. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity.

I hope conscientious vegetarians are not pro-abortion. I think there would be some hypocrisy there.

Why?

Sorry, didn't see "One would have quite a tough time proving cows more deserving of life than an unborn human."

Problem: Most arguments against abortion involve the fetus being inside the mother's womb without her consent and/or committing a act of aggression and endangering the mother's life.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 1:11:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 8:36:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/30/2011 2:15:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't understand the rape exception. If you are going to say that abortion is murder, what makes it different to abort a rape baby?

You'd think that those against abortion would encourage adoption instead.

I'll tell you how it makes sense to people. It's because pro-lifers have never been about protecting life or saving babies or whatever. That is a ruse they create for themselves to mask the sub-conscious reasoning they have behind their unjust policies. Pro-life has always been about the conservative mentality of harsh responsibility. Behind the curtain, pro-life is all about people dealing with the consequence of sexual immorality. In the case of rape, that is changed because it is no longer their fault.

Here is a nail, here is the head, here is you hitting the nail on the head. ")
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm still waiting and hoping for a fellow pro-lifer or anti-abort (one which is adamantly opposed to the rape exception) to debate me on this.

Any takers?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...