Does God intend for rape babies to happen?

[wildfood]

According to the doctrine set out by doctors of the Catholic church, of whom there are fewer than there were popes, everything that happens, happens according to God's will.

In the words of Job, who knew a thing or two about bad times, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?"

According to this doctrine, God does not cause someone to sin but He does in fact direct where that sin will occur, whom it will effect, when, etc.

So in the debate the candidate spoke correctly, at least according to Catholic (and other denominations too) doctrine.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If you believe your god is all-knowing and set this whole existence thing into motion... then I don't see how you can say it didn't mean for this to happen. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

And after reading some of the responses in this thread, which basically boil down to "it was a rape, but in the end it's a beautiful thing and should be cherished..."?!  This is why I hate religion with such a passion.  It makes normally good and reasonable people say and do abhorrent and disgusting things.   

Not to mention several people in this thread who are claiming to know how God thinks, what God wants, and what God intends?  That's a mighty, mighty tall claim to be making.  I don't know these things, and you are not in possession of powers I am not. (yes, I got it from Maher, it's still a good point) <=== this is a completely different discussion, but I can't believe it every time I read posts from someone who claims to know all these unknowable things. 

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

And after reading some of the responses in this thread, which basically boil down to "it was a rape, but in the end it's a beautiful thing and should be cherished..."?!  This is why I hate religion with such a passion.  It makes normally good and reasonable people say and do abhorrent and disgusting things.

In which it is of course unique.

[afleitch]

And after reading some of the responses in this thread, which basically boil down to "it was a rape, but in the end it's a beautiful thing and should be cherished..."?!  This is why I hate religion with such a passion.  It makes normally good and reasonable people say and do abhorrent and disgusting things.

In which it is of course unique.

Human beings struggle throughout life trying to determine what is right and wrong and what is true and untrue. It's not an easy task and no one get's it right but as we stumble from generation to generation we make improvements based on both our experiences in life and our understanding of the world improved by research. Supersition, of which religion is a part makes people make sustained lapses in judgement. It causes a clinic not to provide a life saving abortion to a woman in Ireland or a family to cradle their new born son then hack off it's foreskin to appease a deity. It stops women getting an education in Afghanistan or causes someone who is gay to be thrown out of their own home. It's a hard thing to fight. Personal superstition often causes no harm and if it does cause harm then that superstition is not excused in law. Organised superstition however can cause harm and is often legitimised in political discourse in a manner in which no other thought system is legitimised.

[pugbug]

I don't think a woman, let alone one who has had a baby, has replied yet.

If rape babies are made to be born, why is it that the woman suddenly becomes less important than the fetus? The woman is a living thing herself, yet once she is raped and impregnated, she may as well just be a pot of dirt, according to Catholicism, Islam, etc. It doesn't matter how she's treated during the pregnancy and how comfortable she is, how can she feel good about this whole ordeal? Not to say that some don't go along with it, but we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't an issue. All I've seen from the religious posts are arguments that a full grown fertile woman is not as important as a one-month old fetus. Sorry for the cliche, but if men had to go through with it, there would be no argument against abortion.

Since a woman has to give up her body for nine months, and deal with the after-effects of the pregnancy for up to two years, it's comparable to organ donation. Are we forcing someone to give up an organ to someone who may die without it? No, that's just inhumane. Women have to essentially donate their body so that this fetus and eventually a baby can live. But since pregnancy is seen as natural and organ donation isn't, pregnancy by rape, although completely inhumane, is seen as okay by religious types.

I also take issue with the term "abortion for convenience." That makes it seem like most women are doing it because they want to avoid stretch marks. Usually someone would go in for an abortion because they know they cannot look after the baby once it's born. And don't bring up the option of having the baby adopted, because there are still millions of kids around the world who already need adopting. See, if a girl/woman gets pregnant, even if she took precautions like a condom and/or birth control, she may not be ready for a baby financially, psychologically, or emotionally. If she has the baby in these circumstances, there is a chance that the boy/girl will grow up emotionally scarred or even taken away, and we already know how well that usually turns out for them.

Basically, my point is this: why is a fetus more important than its mother or even the child and adult it will turn into? Why does a fetus get better treatment than do so many children and adults that are already born? Answer me that, religiosities.

[DC Al Fine]

I don't think a woman, let alone one who has had a baby, has replied yet.

If rape babies are made to be born, why is it that the woman suddenly becomes less important than the fetus? The woman is a living thing herself, yet once she is raped and impregnated, she may as well just be a pot of dirt, according to Catholicism, Islam, etc. It doesn't matter how she's treated during the pregnancy and how comfortable she is, how can she feel good about this whole ordeal? Not to say that some don't go along with it, but we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't an issue. All I've seen from the religious posts are arguments that a full grown fertile woman is not as important as a one-month old fetus. Sorry for the cliche, but if men had to go through with it, there would be no argument against abortion.

Since a woman has to give up her body for nine months, and deal with the after-effects of the pregnancy for up to two years, it's comparable to organ donation. Are we forcing someone to give up an organ to someone who may die without it? No, that's just inhumane. Women have to essentially donate their body so that this fetus and eventually a baby can live. But since pregnancy is seen as natural and organ donation isn't, pregnancy by rape, although completely inhumane, is seen as okay by religious types.

I also take issue with the term "abortion for convenience." That makes it seem like most women are doing it because they want to avoid stretch marks. Usually someone would go in for an abortion because they know they cannot look after the baby once it's born. And don't bring up the option of having the baby adopted, because there are still millions of kids around the world who already need adopting. See, if a girl/woman gets pregnant, even if she took precautions like a condom and/or birth control, she may not be ready for a baby financially, psychologically, or emotionally. If she has the baby in these circumstances, there is a chance that the boy/girl will grow up emotionally scarred or even taken away, and we already know how well that usually turns out for them.

Basically, my point is this: why is a fetus more important than its mother or even the child and adult it will turn into? Why does a fetus get better treatment than do so many children and adults that are already born? Answer me that, religiosities.

Your comment shows an astonishing display of ignorance about the Catholic church & Islam as well. Crisis pregnancy centers and other charitable aid towards these women are completely ignored.

More to the point, if a fetus is a person, killing it is murder. Let's not dance around the issue with these silly red herrings.

[afleitch]

Your comment shows an astonishing display of ignorance about the Catholic church & Islam as well. Crisis pregnancy centers and other charitable aid towards these women are completely ignored.

More to the point, if a fetus is a person, killing it is murder. Let's not dance around the issue with these silly red herrings.

The poster actually made a number of valid points which you simply dismissed. To answer your position directly you declaring the unborn a 'person' doesn't protect it in anyway. Killing isn't always 'murder' and even if it is, killing/murder is not always an unethical position; murder in self defence can mitigate any sentencing or even go without sentencing. If you legally decide a little clump of cells is a person, if that 'person' is causing the mother severe physical injury or severe psychological distress from which the only release is the removal of that distress, then killing it is not necessarily an unethical thing to do.

[DC Al Fine]

Your comment shows an astonishing display of ignorance about the Catholic church & Islam as well. Crisis pregnancy centers and other charitable aid towards these women are completely ignored.

More to the point, if a fetus is a person, killing it is murder. Let's not dance around the issue with these silly red herrings.

The poster actually made a number of valid points which you simply dismissed. To answer your position directly you declaring the unborn a 'person' doesn't protect it in anyway. Killing isn't always 'murder' and even if it is, killing/murder is not always an unethical position; murder in self defence can mitigate any sentencing or even go without sentencing. If you legally decide a little clump of cells is a person, if that 'person' is causing the mother severe physical injury or severe psychological distress from which the only release is the removal of that distress, then killing it is not necessarily an unethical thing to do.

Sure, but Pugbug is arguing abortion is justified in the following cases:
1) Mother was raped
2) Mother "isn't ready" to care for the child.

You are arguing for abortion in case of life of the mother, which I can tepidly agree with. The psychological argument does not hold up however. The rapist himself could cause the mother severe psychological distress by being in existence. Should we then execute the rapist if his continued existence is causing the woman distress?

[afleitch]

You are arguing for abortion in case of life of the mother, which I can tepidly agree with. The psychological argument does not hold up however. The rapist himself could cause the mother severe psychological distress by being in existence. Should we then execute the rapist if his continued existence is causing the woman distress?

Not a good argument. What action is taken against a rapist is the decision of the state. The only thing you can do with an embryo is leave it or abort it. You can't take it out unharmed, give it to someone else etc because nothing is viable prior to 21 weeks. Why should a rape victim be forced to carry that child to term? Some do, but some don't want to. Denying them that right is in the 'interests' of the child over the wellbeing of the mother.

I am pro choice as a humanist because I see abortion as a very moral issue. The state has no right to determine what a woman does with her body and she has infinitely more substantive rights in law than the 'rights' of a zygote or an embryo. Between weeks 21 and 24 we have viability. It is a scientific medical fact that a child removed from it's mother before that point has no chance at life but after 24 weeks has every chance of life. Only 0.08% of all terminations in the USA take place after that point often for very specific medical reasons. That is a clear, consistent, medical, reasoned, scientific and non-emotive window that those who are pro-choice understand. A termination prior to this date is entirely the decision of the women and her doctor. To oppose that isn't 'pro-life'; when taken to it's logical conclusion it's possesive, intrusive and at times perverse.

Because if you start trying to protect life before then, then you have to start monitoring women. You have to start monitoring every pregnancy. The millions of women every year who have spontaneous miscarriages in the first days (up to a third of all pregancies) become suspect. Those who suffer the trauma of a miscarriage 14 weeks in, well you better start checking that too, you know, just in case she did it herself. It's literal and figurative probing into the private lives of women that is inhumane.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is "inhumane" as you put it only if you assume a priori that the a non-viable fetus is not yet a human life.  That's a subjective interpretation, not an objective one.  Indeed, the whole question of when a human life begins is subjective and thus one the courts should stay well away from.  Ideally, the only role for the courts on this issue would be to objectively determine if the definition the legislature has subjectively decided to use has been met.

[afleitch]

It is "inhumane" as you put it only if you assume a priori that the a non-viable fetus is not yet a human life.  That's a subjective interpretation, not an objective one.  Indeed, the whole question of when a human life begins is subjective and thus one the courts should stay well away from.  Ideally, the only role for the courts on this issue would be to objectively determine if the definition the legislature has subjectively decided to use has been met.

What I described as inhumane was the necessary monitoring of a woman's reproductive system in the event that the law decides that a nonviable fetus is a life.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

It is "inhumane" as you put it only if you assume a priori that the a non-viable fetus is not yet a human life.  That's a subjective interpretation, not an objective one.  Indeed, the whole question of when a human life begins is subjective and thus one the courts should stay well away from.  Ideally, the only role for the courts on this issue would be to objectively determine if the definition the legislature has subjectively decided to use has been met.

What I described as inhumane was the necessary monitoring of a woman's reproductive system in the event that the law decides that a nonviable fetus is a life.

That may be so but I don't really understand how else the law could plausibly treat the issue if that was the definition used.

[Gustaf]

The best analogy argument for abortion is the zombie argument.

You're attacked by a zombie. The zombie didn't choose to be a zombie and can't help being one. It has all the physical properties of a human. It could even be a human again if we find a zombie-cure. Yet most of us would say we have a right to kill the zombie. Even if the zombie couldn't kill us. Even if we messed up by not taking the protective measures against zombies which we could have (like locking the door or not wearing zombie-deodorant).

Getting pregnant is essentially like being subjected to a zombie attack. QED.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yet most of us would say we have a right to kill the zombie. Even if the zombie couldn't kill us.

What kind of zombie is this?

[afleitch]

It is "inhumane" as you put it only if you assume a priori that the a non-viable fetus is not yet a human life.  That's a subjective interpretation, not an objective one.  Indeed, the whole question of when a human life begins is subjective and thus one the courts should stay well away from.  Ideally, the only role for the courts on this issue would be to objectively determine if the definition the legislature has subjectively decided to use has been met.

What I described as inhumane was the necessary monitoring of a woman's reproductive system in the event that the law decides that a nonviable fetus is a life.

That may be so but I don't really understand how else the law could plausibly treat the issue if that was the definition used.

But would it not make you uncomfortable? I don't want every miscarriage to be treated like a crime scene. An abortion is a medical procedure. To deny it is inhumane. A more tangible example might be a conjoined twin. Operations are carried out to separate them with the acknowledgment that in some procedures one will have to die to save the other. We allow it and condone it in living persons. Some people however unjustifiably put the 'unborn' on a plinth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is "inhumane" as you put it only if you assume a priori that the a non-viable fetus is not yet a human life.  That's a subjective interpretation, not an objective one.  Indeed, the whole question of when a human life begins is subjective and thus one the courts should stay well away from.  Ideally, the only role for the courts on this issue would be to objectively determine if the definition the legislature has subjectively decided to use has been met.

What I described as inhumane was the necessary monitoring of a woman's reproductive system in the event that the law decides that a nonviable fetus is a life.

That may be so but I don't really understand how else the law could plausibly treat the issue if that was the definition used.

But would it not make you uncomfortable? I don't want every miscarriage to be treated like a crime scene. An abortion is a medical procedure. To deny it is inhumane. A more tangible example might be a conjoined twin. Operations are carried out to separate them with the acknowledgment that in some procedures one will have to die to save the other. We allow it and condone it in living persons. Some people however unjustifiably put the 'unborn' on a plinth.

Except that you are putting forth as a strawman that if there are any restrictions on abortion that all cases involving conflicts between the rights of an unborn child and of the mother carrying it would be inevitable that they would be decided in favor of the unborn child no matter the circumstances.  (Granted, what happened in Ireland this past week makes that strawman a bit more plausible, but it's still a strawman.)

Besides, from the point of view of those who see the unborn as human lives it is people such as you who unjustifiably put the mother on a plinth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The best analogy argument for abortion is the zombie argument.

You're attacked by a zombie. The zombie didn't choose to be a zombie and can't help being one. It has all the physical properties of a human. It could even be a human again if we find a zombie-cure. Yet most of us would say we have a right to kill the zombie. Even if the zombie couldn't kill us. Even if we messed up by not taking the protective measures against zombies which we could have (like locking the door or not wearing zombie-deodorant).

Getting pregnant is essentially like being subjected to a zombie attack. QED.

That is a piss poor analogy since few fetuses will kill their mothers if allowed to live until they can be born.  It's even poorer since most people who are anti-abortion are willing to allow an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk.

[pugbug]

Your comment shows an astonishing display of ignorance about the Catholic church & Islam as well. Crisis pregnancy centers and other charitable aid towards these women are completely ignored.

More to the point, if a fetus is a person, killing it is murder. Let's not dance around the issue with these silly red herrings.

The poster actually made a number of valid points which you simply dismissed. To answer your position directly you declaring the unborn a 'person' doesn't protect it in anyway. Killing isn't always 'murder' and even if it is, killing/murder is not always an unethical position; murder in self defence can mitigate any sentencing or even go without sentencing. If you legally decide a little clump of cells is a person, if that 'person' is causing the mother severe physical injury or severe psychological distress from which the only release is the removal of that distress, then killing it is not necessarily an unethical thing to do.

Sure, but Pugbug is arguing abortion is justified in the following cases:
1) Mother was raped
2) Mother "isn't ready" to care for the child.

You are arguing for abortion in case of life of the mother, which I can tepidly agree with. The psychological argument does not hold up however. The rapist himself could cause the mother severe psychological distress by being in existence. Should we then execute the rapist if his continued existence is causing the woman distress?

How does the psychological argument not hold up? Whether or not you are a parent, you cannot argue that it's easy to be responsible for a child's well-being for at least 18 years.

I am aware that adoption is an option, yes, but did you bypass my point about how there are already far too many kids out there who still need to be adopted? Also, if the mother DOES keep the baby, even if she's in no state to do so, harm could come to the child OR the state will take them away, in which case they are likely to be living in foster care, not actually getting all the love and attention they need (we are all very much aware of the conditions so many kids are forced to live in, I don't need to go into it). Basically, these kids and eventually adults are too often ignored, and are even more likely to end up living in poverty.

So much for being protected and cared for while its unborn, huh?

[DC Al Fine]

Your comment shows an astonishing display of ignorance about the Catholic church & Islam as well. Crisis pregnancy centers and other charitable aid towards these women are completely ignored.

More to the point, if a fetus is a person, killing it is murder. Let's not dance around the issue with these silly red herrings.

The poster actually made a number of valid points which you simply dismissed. To answer your position directly you declaring the unborn a 'person' doesn't protect it in anyway. Killing isn't always 'murder' and even if it is, killing/murder is not always an unethical position; murder in self defence can mitigate any sentencing or even go without sentencing. If you legally decide a little clump of cells is a person, if that 'person' is causing the mother severe physical injury or severe psychological distress from which the only release is the removal of that distress, then killing it is not necessarily an unethical thing to do.

Sure, but Pugbug is arguing abortion is justified in the following cases:
1) Mother was raped
2) Mother "isn't ready" to care for the child.

You are arguing for abortion in case of life of the mother, which I can tepidly agree with. The psychological argument does not hold up however. The rapist himself could cause the mother severe psychological distress by being in existence. Should we then execute the rapist if his continued existence is causing the woman distress?

How does the psychological argument not hold up? Whether or not you are a parent, you cannot argue that it's easy to be responsible for a child's well-being for at least 18 years.

I am aware that adoption is an option, yes, but did you bypass my point about how there are already far too many kids out there who still need to be adopted? Also, if the mother DOES keep the baby, even if she's in no state to do so, harm could come to the child OR the state will take them away, in which case they are likely to be living in foster care, not actually getting all the love and attention they need (we are all very much aware of the conditions so many kids are forced to live in, I don't need to go into it). Basically, these kids and eventually adults are too often ignored, and are even more likely to end up living in poverty.

So much for being protected and cared for while its unborn, huh?

The psychological option doesn't hold up as follows.
1) A rape fetus causes severe distress to a woman
2) Therefore the woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy
3) But a post birth rape baby also causes severe distress to a woman.
4) Therefore a woman should be able to murder her already born rape baby.

The same goes for your sophistry about the child's quality of life.
1) The fetus will not get the care it needs if it is born.
2) Therefore it is ethical to abort it.
3) But already born children may not get the care they need.
4) Therefore it is ethical for a mother to murder her 5 year old.

This goes for virtually every argument for abortion I have heard; they all logically follow that a woman should be allowed to murder her 5 year old.

[pugbug]

Why does death seem to be your answer to everything? Just because you're pro-life doesn't mean I'm pro-death.

Obviously, if a mother felt she couldn't look after her already born rape-baby, she'd relinquish his/her care to the state or to adoptive parents. By then he/she wouldn't be part of the mother and would even be living and breathing and feeling. An undeveloped fetus, however, cannot live without the mother, let alone feel or breath. The fetus may as well be an internal organ. If a mother could relinquish the fetus to live inside another woman till its mature, I'm sure there would be no need for abortion, ever again.

Also, your second set of arguments is again very lazy. All a fetus needs to live is to stay inside its mother's body, whereas a child cannot live off its mother's body; he/she needs food, water, a safe home, and a loving family.

These are the basic differences between a fetus and a 5-year-old. Please explain why you feel they're exactly the same.

Also, I have never heard the "being allowed to murder a 5 year old" argument till you brought it up, so I don't know how every pro-choice argument can come back to it.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're being inconsistent here. If, there's "too many kids" for a 3 month fetus to live, there will still be too many 6 months down the line. If death is an acceptable option before birth if the child can't be taken care of, why not after?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Virtually every pro abortion argument can also be applied to a newborn with the same conclusion.

Ex: Rape fetus can cause Mommy severe stress. Rape infant also causes Mommy severe distress. There is no difference in terms of why it is ethical to kill the child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quit moving the goal posts.

[pugbug]

I'm not moving the goal posts, it's a complicated issue that you're trying to simplify, and everyone here who is pro-life keeps trying to convince me that a fetus=already born child.

Also, I said "fetus," which it no longer is is 6 months after conception, and I may as well clear up now that abortion tends not to mean forced labour.

I'll just ask again, how is a baby or a 5 year old the exact same as a fetus?

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not moving the goal posts, it's a complicated issue that you're trying to simplify, and everyone here who is pro-life keeps trying to convince me that a fetus=already born child.

Also, I said "fetus," which it no longer is is 6 months after conception, and I may as well clear up now that abortion tends not to mean forced labour.

I'll just ask again, how is a baby or a 5 year old the exact same as a fetus?

IIRC Fetus= 8/9 weeks pregnant-Birth
What is the thing in an 8 months pregnant baby in your eyes?

To answer your question: It is biologically human, it has different DNA than Mommy, and they require care from others.