View Poll Results: Should women who are raped be required by law to have the baby?
- 15. You may not vote on this poll
Thread: Rape Babies.
October 3rd, 2010, 06:10 PM #1
Do you think the women who are raped(including incest/underage acts) should be REQUIRED by LAW to have the baby?
Last edited by no1_vern; October 3rd, 2010 at 06:15 PM.They say technology slows down for no one. I know it outruns my wallet. I figure its because my wallet isn't light enough yet.
TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!
dulce bellum inexpertis
October 3rd, 2010, 06:59 PM #2
They should be given a Glock 23 and be able to executed the rapist. No Questions Asked!!!!!!!
I'd gladly chip in for that.
Compassion and empathy requires me to help pay for such abortions. Since the Government pisses so much money on bullshit, helping out a distraught woman or girl shouldn't have anyone's objection.........Unless you're a REAL @$$HOLE.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9TN...eature=related
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
October 3rd, 2010, 09:48 PM #3
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
If anyone'e interested in the actual names:
2010 Election Candidates responses to the RNC/Life Questionnaire.Good job, friend-of-friends!
October 4th, 2010, 01:18 AM #4
October 4th, 2010, 01:23 AM #5
How many impregnations are due to rape nowadays? Seriously. It's far less than you are led to believe. What if the Male Pill is finally made available?
October 4th, 2010, 01:33 AM #6
October 4th, 2010, 02:29 AM #7
I believe human life begins at the moment of conception. Because of that I don't support killing it, even if it's only a few cells big, under any circumstances.
October 4th, 2010, 04:57 AM #8
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Uh, Central Oregon
- Blog Entries
Our oldest Grandson is the product of rape . . . We paid for his birth and we're raising him. He's a GREAT little guy and he doesn't know his father and never will, if I have any say in it.
BTW, the police told the father not to come around my place or where I work . . . as they couldn't guarantee his safety.
October 4th, 2010, 10:39 PM #9
No. Some people born with significant birth defects (like a mental defect) turn out to be absolutely amazing sometimes. The brain makes up for it's failings somewhere else and these people should be allowed to live because it may very well teach us something.
Conjoined twins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's a major defect, but they lived.
Abigail and Brittany Hensel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some people are born with a brain that's either horribly deformed, or nonexistent. Here are a few of the many such birth defects.
Hydranencephaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is no standard treatment for hydranencephaly. Treatment is symptomatic and supportive. Hydrocephalus may be treated with a shunt. The prognosis for children with Hydranencephaly is generally quite poor. Death usually occurs in the first year of life.
In a survey completed by 88 families of children with Hydranencephaly from 2006-2007, 69% of the children who had died, did so after their first birthday. The oldest of the children who had died was in their 20s. 62% of the children represented in the survey were over the age of 1 at the time it was filled out. The first year is the hardest for children with Hydranencephaly but survival is possible.
The oldest known survivor was 32, and was observed to have noncortical responses to auditory stimuli.
Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Children with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the neocortex, which is responsible for higher-level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed—not covered by bone or skin.
A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch occur.
There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is poor. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.
Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first six months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with gangliosides, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Death usually occurs before the age of four.
You haven't really thought about these things, have you?
October 4th, 2010, 11:42 PM #10You, voogru, Mr. Freedom and Individual Liberty himself... would require a woman to bring a non-viable pregnancy to full term, only to have her endure a physically and emotionally painful childbirth rife with expensive complications and the potential for expensive long term care and treatment????
October 4th, 2010, 11:54 PM #11
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
well played, sir.Good job, friend-of-friends!
October 5th, 2010, 01:56 AM #12
offtopic, ignore it's kinda working against natural selection, I don't know how many people with disorders can have kids but isn't the argument of the republicans for marriage based on nature?
at one side they try to protect marriage because it's how nature wants it and on the other side they try to let people live who wouldn't have survived 100 years ago
IMO they should be allowed to abort when THEY want it pretty simple, i don't tell you to abort but you should let me abort if I want to (something like that, which sounds like some republican would say).
October 5th, 2010, 03:59 AM #13
on the same train of thought, shouldn't we accept same sex marriage because we all evolved in a moral sense?
humans went great length to fight nature in many ways, one of them is that we nurture people who wouldn't have survived natural selection.
there is slight hypocrisy going on here. basing arguments on the same foundation but concluding different results.
I want people to let them chose what they do with their bodies. they can get piercings, they can get breast enlargements they can even kill themselves. it's their life. and if a pregnant person doesn't want to go through a pregnancy where she knows that the child born inside of her is a product of hatred or bad luck, she shouldn't have to. it's her body, it's her flesh and blood and as long as that baby has no brain waves or own heartbeat it's hers and she can do with it as she pleases. the moment it becomes a sentient being she won't have a choice in this.
October 5th, 2010, 08:24 AM #14
God allows people to Sin. it is a God given right! Remember "Free Will".
As for Savant syndrome,
Well I have two serious thoughts on that one.
1) I don't care if I have an amazing piano player who drools and craps on themselves and never interacts with people or has a higher thought. My stereo can play music that does not make it human. Given the choice at the zygot stage when no pain is felt this wonderful piano player can be avoided.
2) Some of the disorders that Gomer presented would preclude Savant syndrome as these humanoid things will never be Savant beyond mastering breathing and metabolic function.
October 5th, 2010, 09:26 AM #15
sad but true. For me the defintion of human is a creature of thought, to have wants, needs, desires, knowledge of past present future, love and the ability to reason. if you do not have all these things then you have something that is less than human. That is not to say you should be exterminated just as I would not simply kill a dog. I would not kill a savant or any other semi functional human body unless it was not viable.
Simply having a human body means nothing with a mind to go with it. as such a clump of cells may have the potential but it will not consider the loss if it is terminated. So I have no problem with terminating a pregnancy. as the pregnancy progresses I tend to side with the anti abortion folks a little more. As the brain progresses the more that thing becomes a human wothy of protection. however in all cases the mothers life is first so if it becomes a risk to her life then she trumps the baby if she show chooses. A babies worth is defined mostly by the mother AFAIAC.
October 5th, 2010, 10:04 AM #16
I do not recommend killing her now nor at birth. I clearly stated that above,
I would not kill a savant or any other semi functional human body unless it was not viable.
medical science could not even have identified this before birth, but if they could and it were my pregnancy i would have avoided allowing the pregnancy to go to term. Just as I would avoid poking a stick in my eye. someday I might get a super bionic eye that allows me to see a winning lottery ticket under the counter winning me millions, but I am not going to bank on that. nor am I going to willingly put the girl through the trials now my family through the trials she will encounter.
it is much better for all that the problem have never existed. Lucky for her that they stumbled on this sollution or her life would have been hell.
Killing a lump of cells is killing only potential not a taking a human life.
by the potential standard you should constantly have sex with your wife when she ovulates to avoid killin potential lives. Every egg lost is a lost chance at life.
a zygot is just one step higher than an egg lost. Should women be able to choose when they have sex or in the name of potential should we impregnate her every possible chance we get until her uterus falls out?
PS great story. although were able to keep a child of mine from feeling like she is covered by ants or on fire I think I would. 11 years with out a voice, and continuing sensory overload. I wonder what should would say to the question. if you could go back in time and stop your existence would you?
Last edited by Epidemic; October 5th, 2010 at 10:17 AM.
October 5th, 2010, 10:15 AM #17
October 5th, 2010, 11:11 AM #18
before birth absolutely.
if you kill a clump of cells it does not feel it, it does not sense the loss of more than biological functions. I am not for making abortion mandetory but rather at that point the mothers rights supercede the glob of cells. Once again it is between god and her. remember free will.
I don't believe in your God... nor do I belive in hindu god or mohammad!!! Your protection of the lump of cells is strongly guided by your belief that I can not strip the rights of the lump of cells because of potential lost. I say that we throw away potential every month in the womans womb. every family should be full of 20 or so irish twins
i am sorry but your right to believe in God your way does not trump my right to believe in what ever I believe it is between me and god. I do not believe killing a blastocyst/zygot/embreyo/fetus to be a sin. Prove me wrong in a tangible way.
When you prove your God to me in a tangible way and prove to me that it is a sin then I will back you up. until that time you have a belief no better or worse than my belief. I don't have a right to demand you to empregnate your wife every month nor do I have the right to demand she abort a prenancy.
October 5th, 2010, 11:19 AM #19
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
So the government should be allowed to infere in peoples lives by banning abortions?
Amazing how some people only like the government when it's convenient for them...
October 5th, 2010, 11:21 AM #20
What about the fact that a fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks in, or earlier? Pretty sure it will feel it if you kill it...
Also, what are the mother's "rights" that you are defending that supersede the fetus's rights?
As for the "free will" comment, that is pure BS. Just because someone believes that God gave us free will, doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop murder. Should we get rid of murder laws because of free will? Of course not! Why would abortion laws be different because of free will?
OK, so you don't believe in God, that's fine. However, your arguments seem to stem from the fact that a fetus doesn't feel pain, isn't self aware, and can't live on it's own. A fetus does feel pain (I can provide links when I get home if you are that skeptical, but if you poke a fetus with a pin in the hand, it opens it's mouth as if to cry, and moves its hand out of the way, the same exact response as a newborn). A fetus may not be "self aware" but many scientists agree that self awareness doesn't typically develop until well after birth. Why can you abort a fetus, but not kill a newborn that isn't yet self aware? The third item is viability. The fetus requires the mother to provide it with nutrients from her body. After birth, the baby still requires a mother to provide it nutrients from her body (in the form of milk), though modern science has given alternatives.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but hopefully it gives you something to think about...I don't like signatures.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By TrendyMartini in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 10Last Post: November 6th, 2006, 11:33 PM
By EpyonMelee in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 29Last Post: July 30th, 2005, 09:49 AM
By Theophylact in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 1Last Post: July 31st, 2003, 09:47 PM
By ClubMed in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 1Last Post: February 25th, 2002, 09:04 PM