Atheists and abortion

[Kdall]

Let me get this straight.

I have a daughter who is raped.
I have no means to take vengeance on the rapist, who is locked safely away in protective custody.
My daughter is pregnant from the rape.

So, you want me to vent my rage at the rapist on an innocent child?

Does it have to be the rapist's child, or would any innocent child do?
After all, I wouldn't want to kill my own grandchild, that would not be right.

I've stated my thoughts on abortion as a whole two or three posts above.

Prior to 8 weeks, conception does not occur. Conception is when the zygote implants into the uterus and begins cellular division, developing into a human. Before that point, it's just a cell.

I don't want you taking out your rage on anyone, least of all your daughter. Why would you ever make her go through the trauma and humiliation of, first, being forcibly raped, then having to carry to term while being ridiculed by her peers?

She would never speak to you again. And who could blame her?

 

[quip]

Does it have to be the rapist's child, or would any innocent child do?

You keep making such nonsensical comments.

Please show me the brilliant logic that brought you to this gem of a conclusion.

 

[I drank what?]

...

 

[Lighthouse]

If your daughter was impregnated by a rapist, are you telling me you are going to force her to go through with the pregnancy? You're good with traumatizing her further and putting her through peer ridicule? That's sick

If her peers ridicule her for being raped that is what is sick.

 

[Kdall]

If her peers ridicule her for being raped that is what is sick.

It is sick. But it happens, and if you put her through it knowing that's going to happen, you too are sick

 

[Rusha]

I don't want you taking out your rage on anyone, least of all your daughter.

Right. Supporting a daughter through rape and supporting a daughter through pregnancy is rage. You certainly do not understand rage very well ... or perhaps you just enjoy accusing others of motives that are not based on reality.

Rage, when aimed at other human beings, wish to destroy or harm them. The only human being in this scenario who is the victim of rage is the innocent unborn baby.

Why would you ever make her go through the trauma and humiliation of, first, being forcibly raped, then having to carry to term while being ridiculed by her peers?

Humiliation? What is there to be humiliated about? You act as though rape victims did something wrong. Do you see them as dirty or as asking for it? Also, what kind of lowlife, moron would ridicule a rape victim? You have made no comment about those who would ridicule her. Why is that?

She would never speak to you again. And who could blame her?

And years later should she grow morals and realizes you encouraged her to kill your grandchild, who else would she blame other than herself. Oh, that's right. YOU ... which is as it should be.

If her peers ridicule her for being raped that is what is sick.

Oh ... but apparently that is not to be discouraged.

It is sick.

And yet you are unwilling to stand against the sickness of the peers. That only means that a part of you agrees with the ridicule.

But it happens, and if you put her through it knowing that's going to happen, you too are sick

That is solely your opinion ... and being that it stems from someone who has defended the intentional killing of their own grandchild (unborn), your *opinion* is subhuman. To say the least.

 

[Kdall]

Right. Supporting a daughter through rape and supporting a daughter through pregnancy is rage. You certainly do not understand rage very well ... or perhaps you just enjoy accusing others of motives that are not based on reality.

Rage, when aimed at other human beings, wish to destroy or harm them. The only human being in this scenario who is the victim of rage is the innocent unborn baby.



Humiliation? What is there to be humiliated about? You act as though rape victims did something wrong. Do you see them as dirty or as asking for it? Also, what kind of lowlife, moron would ridicule a rape victim? You have made no comment about those who would ridicule her. Why is that?



And years later should she grow morals and realizes you encouraged her to kill your grandchild, who else would she blame other than herself. Oh, that's right. YOU ... which is as it should be.



Oh ... but apparently that is not to be discouraged.



And yet you are unwilling to stand against the sickness of the peers. That only means that a part of you agrees with the ridicule.



That is solely your opinion ... and being that it stems from someone who has defended the intentional killing of their own grandchild (unborn), your *opinion* is subhuman. To say the least.

Maybe read the post I answered next time? Genuineoriginal was the one who brought rage into it.

You don't seem to grasp this. I said what the peers do is sick. Making fun of a poor victim for something out of her control is wrong, but you can't change how people are. What you CAN do is not make your daughter go through the ridicule. Maybe you don't remember how kids are, but they're mean. When they see a weakness, they poke at it. Not all obviously, but some of her peers would call her a slut, whore, and so on. Perhaps they don't believe her story that she was raped, or maybe they don't care. Either way, she's going to suffer at their hands.

I'd rather her wait to have a child that she actually wanted and wasn't a rape baby than force her to go through such trauma that she WILL get very depressed, and could take her own life, which in turn also kills the unborn fetus. No winners there.

Prior to 8 weeks, there is no child. It's a cell floating around. At 8 weeks the zygote implants into the uterus and begins to divide and develop into a baby. Before that it's a unicellular organism, no more human than algae.

 

[aikido7]

Interesting blog post. It showcases one woman's story. She has an abortion, so let the reader beware:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/xojan...regnant-and-wanted-an-abortion_b_6910218.html

 

[Stripe]

Interesting blog post. It showcases one woman's story.

Atheists love making heroes out of murderers.

 

[Dolmax]

Prior to 8 weeks, there is no child. It's a cell floating around. At 8 weeks the zygote implants into the uterus and begins to divide and develop into a baby. Before that it's a unicellular organism, no more human than algae.

:noway:

You must surely have made a typo, do you really not know what an unborn baby looks like at 8 weeks:

This is the first few days of life, i.e. called an embryo at implantation:

Called a foetus (fully developed - all organs in place) from the 8th week.

Why would the initial single cell float about for 8 whole weeks?

The gestation period of a cat is about 60 days. How can one believe that in the case of a cat, the kitten is ready to be born already after just 8 weeks; but in humans the initial cell at conception just floats around for 8 weeks? :dizzy:

 

[rexlunae]

Can you show that this is correct using the scientific method?

Can you draw me a picture with a potato? It isn't really a scientific question, primarily.

Do you think that you can do without making a determination about what a person is? And then, how do you do so?

 

[aikido7]

Atheists love making heroes out of murderers.

Did you read the post? The lady was far from heroic.

And I am a Christian. A Christian in exile perhaps, but a Christian nonetheless.

 

[rexlunae]

The definition -- whatever it is -- is a legal, ethical one. There were laws saying African slaves were not people. There were laws declaring Jews not to be people.

I believe I also suggested that it was a moral question.

Aren't we trying to decide a law about abortion? After all, isn't it laws that say abortion is illegal? Of course! That's what "illegal" means -- against the law.

That response would make sense if my statement had been limited to the law. But it wasn't.

What Stripe is trying to find is a scientific justification behind the law.

There seems to be a bit of an is/ought fallacy in play here. Science can't really tell us what ought to be. It can only tell us what is. It's up to philosophy and our values to instruct us from there.

Brain development is one of the criteria we use to decide who is a person and what is not. It is still somewhat arbitrary.

I disagree. It's pretty directly linked to the reasons that people have rights in the first place. We don't give rights to potted plants because they don't have an independent will, because they don't have minds, because they don't have brains. Likewise for the ability to feel pain, to have a sense of individuality and self-awareness, to have relationships with other people, etc. What's arbitrary is the insistence that a thing must be a person endowed with all human rights because it is classified one way or another.

It's really an illustration of the dangers of religious morality. People start to think that morals are just random rules passed down from on high, and they forget that those rules came about for a reason, which must be updated to reflect current realities and understandings.

People can argue it, as the Terri Schiavo case so publicly illustrated. Terri's parents said she had brain activity. The autopsy reported she did not have the brain tissue to have brain activity. Biologically, there was no doubt she was human. However, I don't remember any anti-abortion group arguing that it was immoral to stop life support after the autopsy report came it. Even they agreed that no brain activity = not a person.

Anti-abortion groups arguing that it was immoral to remove her from life support were the whole reason anyone outside the family ever heard about the case. And once the autopsy report came in, the whole thing was largely out of the spotlight, so we can't really assume that silence means assent.

But then, for anti-abortion people, it's not really about personhood or abortion. Dig beneath the surface far enough, and you find this is really about sex. They want to use the threat of a possible pregnancy to keep women from having sex.

I think that's a part of it, especially from some of the folks here. But I actually give them a bit more credit than that, I think. I think it comes from the fact that people understandably aren't comfortable making the call about where a person begins, and so they look to the most definitive point that's available. And because we've all been conditioned to disregard and dismiss a woman's perspective, a lot of people are willing make that over-cautious calculation at the expense the bodily integrity of women in general.

 

[Kdall]

:noway:

You must surely have made a typo, do you really not know what an unborn baby looks like at 8 weeks:

This is the first few days of life, i.e. called an embryo at implantation:

Called a foetus (fully developed - all organs in place) from the 8th week.

Why would the initial single cell float about for 8 whole weeks?

The gestation period of a cat is about 60 days. How can one believe that in the case of a cat, the kitten is ready to be born already after just 8 weeks; but in humans the initial cell at conception just floats around for 8 weeks? :dizzy:

You're correct. I was mistaken.

 

[Stripe]

It's up to philosophy and our values to instruct us from there.

It doesn't take much before the evolutionists begin to vaccilate on their materialism.

 

[rexlunae]

It doesn't take much before the evolutionists begin to vaccilate on their materialism.

Do you have a single constructive thought to add to the conversation? Or did you just start this thread in order to have a peanut gallery to join?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I've stated my thoughts on abortion as a whole two or three posts above.

Prior to 8 weeks, conception does not occur. Conception is when the zygote implants into the uterus and begins cellular division, developing into a human. Before that point, it's just a cell.

I don't want you taking out your rage on anyone, least of all your daughter.

Then why are you saying someone should kill her baby?

Why would you ever make her go through the trauma and humiliation of, first, being forcibly raped, then having to carry to term while being ridiculed by her peers?

You seem to have a much different opinion of the peer group than I do, since you seem to think they are justified in ridiculing a rape victim.

She would never speak to you again. And who could blame her?

That would be a justifiable action if I killed her baby.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You keep making such nonsensical comments.

Please show me the brilliant logic that brought you to this gem of a conclusion.

I am just trying to understand the logic, or lack of logic, involved in the scenario.

Do you stand for the idea that any woman who is raped can now go out an murder a child without consequence, like getting a free shot in basketball after being fouled?

Or is it only certain women that can murder a child after being raped?

 

[quip]

I am just trying to understand the logic, or lack of logic, involved in the scenario.

Do you stand for the idea that any woman who is raped can now go out an murder a child without consequence, like getting a free shot in basketball after being fouled?

Yes, her unborn fetus concieved from rape.....and analogizing a pregnancy from rape to that of a basketball foul only makes you look like an irrational/ignorant fool.

Or is it only certain women that can murder a child after being raped?

You mean....like a woman who gets pregnant via rape?! :doh:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, her unborn fetus concieved from rape.....and analogizing a pregnancy from rape to that of a basketball foul only makes you look like an irrational/ignorant fool.

You mean....like a woman who gets pregnant via rape?! :doh:

A woman got pregnant from a rape and you believe that gives her a free pass to murder an innocent human being?