For all of you who said her mother should have given up the baby for adoption, the father has to sign off for that. The father would have gotten the first chance to keep that child. Would you have her give that child over to the violent man she had been in a relationship with so he could rape some other woman in front of it? Teach it how to become a rapist?
I
2007-06-12 03:47:45 · 9 answers · asked by ZombieTrix 2012 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sylvia, if he is the biological father, the courts would not be involved.
2007-06-12 03:53:40 · update #1
PaulCyp, not CHILDREN. POTENTIAL children. An early abortion destroys a cluster of cells the size of your toenail. Do it then, and there is no child, no pain, no "ripping of limbs," not brain stem, no child. Once a child is in the world, we need to protect THEM, and sometimes the best way to do that is to avoid having more than we as a society can handle.
2007-06-12 04:00:22 · update #2
Don't try reasoning with them...
2007-06-12 03:50:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Oohhh- is that the sound of pissing against the wind I hear? The abortion debate really just crawls along history, doesn't it?
While I agree that abortion is something that should never be overused or treated as the ONLY solution, I also agree that it is something that would be too damaging to us as a society if it was banned practice.
The reality of this situation is that you can't treat every case exactly the same- but if you eliminate that option, people will take the matter into their own hands, and we'd just end up reinstating the choice.
Taking the choice away is about as responsible as taking a gun away from a kid, then handing them a shotgun shell and a nail- it's more damaging to close the book on that option, especially in the case of a rape baby (which, actually rarely occurs- most rape cases do not end up in pregnancy, but this is beside the point). While I think abortion has too much opportunity to turn into a form of birth control, I feel that eliminating it could turn it into a form of suicide.
edit: Sebastian- you've obviously never talked to a rape victim about their visit to the police station before. The cops try to pin all the blame on the woman- asking what she was wearing, what was the situation, did you provoke this any, did you agree to consensual sex but change your mind, did etc...
A lot of these rapists are still on the streets because the police don't do their jobs.
2007-06-12 04:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by billthakat 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is an absurd point of view. She should have contacted the authorities. Consider that she still would have run, still would have gotten away and instead could have had more protection now that he would be in prison. However, killing the baby was just wrong. What did that baby ever do to her. She should have killed the man, and that would have been excusable. Self defense still works.
The man raped her for crying out loud. Do you think anyone would have let him go free, whether in the legal system or just out in public? The reason nothing ever happens to these guys, and they get legal rights over their kids, is because when these women are raped, they go ahead and just expect that walking away from the offender makes it all better. Get that guy locked up and see how many rights he loses to those kids.
As a man it breaks my heart because I feel like wringing that guy's neck but I am equally pissed off at the women who transfer their earnest action into harming the children in the process instead of taking it out on the guy who did the wrong in the first place.
2007-06-12 03:59:28 · answer #3 · answered by Rothwyn 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Does good ever come from evil? Do the ends really justify the means? Can we get a good result from practicing sin?
Killing anyone is a sin. Should we go on the streets killing children of violent people because they're being taught violence? Some say we should. I avoid those people.
Plenty of children of violent people grow up to be outstanding citizens. The world would be a great loss without them.
Yours, Grace
2007-06-12 04:02:29 · answer #4 · answered by Grace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a humanist, I find human life should be treasured. Arguments that compare the quality of that live to its value seem invalid.
There is a valid argument that a woman's body is her own, and her freedom to choose what happens to it should not be removed by the state. That can be rationally supported, argued, and debated. The potential quality of an unborn child's life is not a valid criteria for the rights to terminate a life. It may effect the mother's decision, but does not form part of any valid case for her right to form that decision. We should abandon this argument.
2007-06-12 04:10:21 · answer #5 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always say every woman has her reasons for an abortion. It is not up to us to judge these women but to keep the option of abortion safe and legal. You ask a very valid question and bring to the table a very stirring point
2007-06-12 03:54:16 · answer #6 · answered by calmlikeatimebomb 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So you are suggesting that the best way to protect children from possible bad situations is to kill them first???
2007-06-12 03:57:08 · answer #7 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the man is violent or is a rapist then the courts wouldn't even consider allowing him to have the child.
2007-06-12 03:50:42 · answer #8 · answered by Sylvia G 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I hear you
2007-06-12 03:52:24 · answer #9 · answered by John C 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋