I know there are obvious differences, but on a gut level, saying a child is worthless just because it has half of the genes of someone who raped another person is a lot like a bigot saying that a child is worthless because it has half the genes of a different race.
It''s not, really. We''re talking about discriminating on real, solid actions, not prejudging people based on their skin color. It''s kind of hard to argue with a ''gut level'' feeling though.
Do you have the same feelings regarding castration of men convicted of multiple rapes?
Do you have the same feelings regarding castration of men convicted of multiple rapes?
That''s to prevent further rapes, not to limit procreation by rapists.
I know there are obvious differences, but on a gut level, saying a child is worthless just because it has half of the genes of someone who raped another person is a lot like a bigot saying that a child is worthless because it has half the genes of a different race.It''s not, really. We''re talking about discriminating on real, solid actions, not prejudging people based on their skin color. It''s kind of hard to argue with a ''gut level'' feeling though.
Do you have the same feelings regarding castration of men convicted of multiple rapes?
My point is that the child is being wronged for actions of the parent. In a bigotry scenario, should the child be killed/sterilized because some people find it distasteful/sinful/wrong that races be mixed? Obviously not. In a rape scenario, should the child/baby/fetus be killed because of the crime/sin of a parent? To me, the answer is again, obviously not.
In a rape scenario, should the child/baby/fetus be killed because of the crime/sin of a parent? To me, the answer is again, obviously not.
What solution do you offer here? Have the mother go full term and have her deliver the baby?
What''s then?
Speaking of genes and DNA and such -- one could very reasonably suspect that the rapist could be an alcohol or drug addict or have a history of mental disturbances and what not. Indeed not a desirable kind of genetic material.
What solution do you offer here? Have the mother go full term and have her deliver the baby?What''s then?
Don''t know much about the adoption process I guess? The lines for parents wanting to adopt is longer than the eye can see.
You would line up to adopt a mentally {ableist slur} child of a crack addict?
You would line up to adopt a mentally {ableist slur} child of a crack addict?
One of my aunts is mentally {ableist slur} and my fiance''s niece was adopted from a crack addict. So, yes.
I must have missed it in the handbook of life, a {ableist slur} child or crack baby doesn''t need a family? I learn something every day. 
"Gorilla.800.lbs" wrote:You would line up to adopt a mentally {ableist slur} child of a crack addict?
One of my aunts is mentally {ableist slur} and my fiance''s niece was adopted from a crack addict. So, yes.
I must have missed it in the handbook of life, a {ableist slur} child or crack baby doesn''t need a family? I learn something every day. :|
You heartless conservative.
You would line up to adopt a mentally {ableist slur} child of a crack addict?
Are you saying these people have no right to live? I assume your attitude has nothing to do with their being born or not - why not kill them after birth if the mother was too sqeamish to abort them when you wish she had?
Indeed not a desirable kind of genetic material.
Yes, and while we''re at it, we could kill anyone who doesn''t have blond hair and blue eyes. I think life is easier on beautiful people, so we should only let the beautiful people live...
I don''t think so.
I agree that it really sucks that the mother would have to carry this baby when it wasn''t something she planned on or was responsible for. Humans have a terrible ability to affect other peoples lives sometimes, but if I''ve been wronged, I don''t think it is acceptable to destroy other innocent peoples lives to soothe my pain.
Hats off to your fiance''s sibling. Hope their whole family is happy, and there''re more people like that out there. Was the crack baby fathered in rape BTW?
You would line up to adopt a mentally {ableist slur} child of a crack addict?Are you saying these people have no right to live?
They do. What I was referring to is where they end up living -- in families or in orphanages.
Yes, and while we''re at it, we could kill anyone who doesn''t have blond hair and blue eyes. I think life is easier on beautiful people, so we should only let the beautiful people live...I don''t think so.
I don''t, either. What if we got a hard-line theocracy in power that wanted to abort all potiential Muslim citizens, or a government that decided that all potiential citizens should meet genetic standards before they were allowed to be born? Examples like the above are another reason why we need to keep the government out of these decisions. Reproductive choice should be a completely private matter.
Hats off to your fiance''s sibling. Hope their whole family is happy, and there''re more people like that out there. Was the crack baby fathered in rape BTW?
I guess gorilla thinks all unwanted babies should be aborted. While I have heard this argument a lot from the left, it is still chilling. The idea that human children could suffer from some vagary of circumstance that makes other humans want to kill them is appalling - and it seriously makes me think that people who feel this way would be all for infanticide if they could just get people over their weak stomachs.
Examples like the above are another reason why we need to keep the government out of these decisions.
Or a good reason to just make abortion illegal.
Or a good reason to just make abortion illegal.
I trust mothers to make the right decision more than I trust the government.
I trust mothers to make the right decision more than I trust the government.
So why is infanticide illegal? Should we leave the choice as to whether unwanted 1 year-olds should be killed up to the mothers?
He said more, not completely.
I guess gorilla thinks all unwanted babies should be aborted.
You guess is wrong. I never said ""all...should"". You''re talking like some totalitarian here. My position is that it''s up to the mothers to decide.
He said more, not completely.
What''s that have to do with anything? If they are trustworthy enough not to abort their babies, then they should e trustworthy enough not to kill them as toddlers. Why have laws at all?
What''s that have to do with anything? If they are trustworthy enough not to abort their babies, then they should e trustworthy enough not to kill them as toddlers. Why have laws at all?
Because when they are born, they become citizens of the USA and are protected as such.
Because when they are born, they become citizens of the USA and are protected as such.
That''s it? So you''d have no problem with legislation designating unborn children as citizens to protect them?
He said more, not completely.What''s that have to do with anything? If they are trustworthy enough not to abort their babies, then they should e trustworthy enough not to kill them as toddlers. Why have laws at all?
The semantics is what matters, oh pal of mine. I agree with him, though I would have added one extra bit to the statement:
I trust most mothers more then I do the government.
The semantics is what matters, oh pal of mine. I agree with him, though I would have added one extra bit to the statement:I trust most mothers more then I do the government.
Which is why abortion should be illegal, since we can''t rely on all mothers to do the right thing?
Which is why owning guns should be outlawed since we can''t rely on all gun owners to do the right thing...
Which is why owning guns should be outlawed since we can''t rely on all gun owners to do the right thing...
Actually we do rely on gun owners to do the right things - hunt, defend themselves and their property, if necessary defend their liberty. What right thing is done in an abortion?
Depends who you ask.
Depends who you ask.
Nice evasion. Even the people I know who are pro-choice tell me that abortion is an awful thing. You brought up the gun analogy. Gun ownership is a good thing that in a small percentage of cases has a bad result. So again, how is abortion analogous to gun ownership - what is the good thing that results from legalized abortion?
Hats off to your fiance''s sibling. Hope their whole family is happy, and there''re more people like that out there. Was the crack baby fathered in rape BTW?
Not that we are aware of, it would be hard to tell with the crazy life that lady leads.
Depends who you ask.Nice evasion. Even the people I know who are pro-choice tell me that abortion is an awful thing. You brought up the gun analogy. Gun ownership is a good thing that in a small percentage of cases has a bad result. So again, how is abortion analogous to gun ownership - what is the good thing that results from legalized abortion?
The anology fits under the idea of reasons for creating laws. You''re saying a minorty of mothers who abort supports the idea that we need laws to prohibit it. I said that''s the same thing as saying the minority of gun owners who commit moral wrongs means we should outlaw guns.
The real argument agaisnt what I said would be ""guns do not always kill people where as abortions always do.""
Of course I''m sure you will (or would if I didn''t address it here) come in and tell me that my reasoning above would lead me to be a supporter for anti-abortion laws. It doesn''t. I believe there are circumstances in which it is warranted. We can argue on ""life of the mother"" until we turn blue in the face. I don''t really feel like it because as I stated earlier the issue will never go away.
As for your calling me evasive, my point is valid. It depends who you ask. Ask a conservative christian, and you''ll get one answer. Ask a liberal minded feminist and you''ll get another. I guess I shouldn''t have expected you to read between the lines.
Pages