Can a rape victim determine the value of their unborn child?

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
She didn't choose to deliver us early we were coming. Drugs to stop labor are not available in every situation.

You also need to prove that bodily autonomy is somehow given by God to the woman but not the child. And if your argument rests on the same ground as the violinist argument that can be refuted.
Autonomy doesn't matter.

Obedience to God is what is required.

From the commandments: no adultery, no stealing, no murder

autonomy does not change any commandment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Oops, I did not realize there were no labor stopping drugs in 1974. Now that there are, a woman today is able to avoid delivering her baby too early.

Who is the violinist and what does that have to do with anything?

Not every woman can stop labor today either. And again your argument would only bear weight in a country with that technology. So a human right is then determined by the level of technology a culture has.

The violinist is the analogous argument made by the pro-choice side for bodily autonomy. It's been refuted over and over.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not comparable. You can allow someone to die by not giving them your kidney. You can't purposefully stab them with a knife.

If they attempt to abduct you against your will and force you into an operating room to attempt to extract your kidney, can you purposefully stab them then?
Seems to me that answer is "YES".

The difference is allowing someone to die as a natural course of their illness without giving your kidney to them, while abortion is purposefully taking the life of a human being.

A human being with Special "super rights" that get stripped away once it draws its first breath.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What pushes back viability is the devlopment and improvement of machines in neonatal care units and all the additional training NICU staff get to keep preemies alive. This is not truly being viable because babies still are not breathing, digesting milk, etc. on their own. Viability must be defined the way it used to be: a baby's ability to live outside the mother without any manmade assistance. Until thyen, a baby cannot be said to have body autonomy, even if the mother goes into labor too early.

My sister, who is married to an ob/gyn, started having contractions during the second trimester. She took a medication to stop it and have a full-term baby.
Without man-made assistance, the baby is still reliant on the mother's body to survive; the baby requires the mother's breast milk to live.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The issue isn't whether or not the unborn deserve to live, but whether or not they have the right to the use of someone else's body in order to do so.

Correct. Apparently ONLY the unborn have this "super right", and it gets immediately stripped away once it draws its first breath, and we then say "NO, not under any circumstances can you require another person, against their will, to provide you with their organs to survive, your right to life is now subordinate to the other persons right to Bodily Autonomy, whereas before you were born, the opposite was true."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bekkilyn
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Without man-made assistance, the baby is still reliant on the mother's body to survive; the baby requires the mother's breast milk to live.

No mother is required by law to breastfeed.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,644
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is no such thing as a 7-week old fetus. At that time the unborn baby is still an embryo.

Body autonnomy can't begin before there is a full body breathing, digesting food, sleeping ,etc.

But complete autonomy as a citizen isn't there until the age of 18 while still living under the mother's roof.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,644
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Same group of "religious" folk. I'm unimpressed by the religiosity that's so concerned in one case and unconcerned about the same lives 9 months later.

If they weren't concerned about the same lives 9 months later, then it doesn't explain the "born alive" and partial birth abortion laws they want.
 
Upvote 0

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No mother is required by law to breastfeed.
The context of the post I was replying to was suggesting that a baby only has rights if it is able to live outside the mother without man-made intervention. No baby can live outside the womb without man-made assistance AND without the mother's body (milk from her breasts).
So if a baby only has human rights if it can survive without the mother's body AND without man-made assistance, then it doesn't actually have any rights at all.
However, the law tells us that a mother will be arrested if she permits her born baby to die of starvation, which would mean that, according to the law, mother's ARE required to sustain their babies with their breast milk when there are no man made appliances to help her (unless she is physically unable to). Therefore, according to the law, babies DO have rights, despite being dependant on the mother's body.
So what's the difference between a 35 week baby that is still dependant on her mother's body outside the womb and the one dependant on her body inside the womb besides location?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
But complete autonomy as a citizen isn't there until the age of 18 while still living under the mother's roof.

That is a totally different issue. You don't need to be an adult to suck your thumb, cry, pick up toys, or sit up. You are referring to legal rights.

Now can we please get back to the thread's topic, which is post-rape abortion?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,246
45,333
67
✟2,915,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You know what pro lifers...lets ban abortion because of rape. Now are you going to provide therapy for the victim...and provide care for that child. We have 10s of thousands of poor and abused children already that we do not take care of them the social services and foster parent system are joke. Some people have abortions because they can not afford a child. So they have the child and give it to the state which you are allowed to do. How many of you Christians are going to open your homes to those kids. So we ban abortion what are going to about those kids. We have already seen how social services and the foster care system takes care of the youngest of our poor and needy and most people do not give them a second thought. You want to force rape victims to give birth to there rapist kids...then you need to be willing to care of the victim and the child...if not...Shut up!
Hello Robert, when my wife and I signed up to be adoptive parents 20 years ago, we were hoping for a newborn, but we were told not to get our hopes up to high because adopting a newborn baby was such a long shot. The reason? Back then there were about 100 qualified couples (IOW, couples looking to adopt a newborn who were already in the system) for every newborn child who was put up for adoption.

The difference is even greater today.

Rape victims make up less than 1% of the abortions that are performed each year, so not only is there a qualified, loving family hoping to adopt any/all newborns who are put up for adoption, birth moms are able to choose from a large number of qualified families and pick the couple/family who they believe is best suited to raise their child for them.

More than 100 to 1.

The problem has NOTHING to do with finding enough loving families/homes for all of the newborn babies who are put up for adoption, it's finding enough newborn babies to fill all of the homes of the families who want them!!

BTW, nothing you said above about social services/foster care has anything to do with a birth mom choosing adoption over abortion. You are attempting to conflate two different issues that have nothing to do with one another.

Concerning your subject matter however, how many children, who are living (or have lived) in poverty and/or are the victims of some kind of crime or abuse, do you believe you'd find who would say that they would have rather been aborted than given a chance to live?

Thanks!

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green
.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Democrats do not really cite the lack of foster homes, but the foster home system and how long kids wait for new families. Where do you get credible information that this is not a problem today? Did you ever go to an adoption agency in a state that does not exempt rape and incest cases and has already taken effect and see the reality?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Democrats do not really cite the lack of foster homes, but the foster home system and how long kids wait for new families. Where do you get credible information that this is not a problem today? Did you ever go to an adoption agency in a state that does not exempt rape and incest cases and has already taken effect and see the reality?
Considering some who are responding to you have actually adopted and fostered children, I would say they would know best.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
want-abortion-outlawed.jpg

The keyword is ADOPT. I am not a fan of fostering kids and then giving them up if they are in situations where the parents will never get them back.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bekkilyn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So what's the difference between a 35 week baby that is still dependant on her mother's body outside the womb and the one dependant on her body inside the womb besides location?

The same difference that says, once outside the womb, the mother isn't be required by law in Alabama to provide the baby the use of her kidney against her will if the baby needed it to survive, but inside the womb, She is.

This difference is already codified into law.

I'm all for changing the law to make it equitable, so if I need a Kidney and you are a match, you should be required by law to give it to me.

There is no reason I should be stripped of my rights to your kidney just because I was born.

That would solve it.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity


The flaw in that argument, aside from being a classic ad hominem, would be by that logic unless I'm going to marry a woman I cannot stop her husband from beating her. If I was alive during the civil war unless I was willing to hire every ex-slave I would have to say that the right to slavery was just. If I am not able to adopt an abused a child I have no right to say that abuse is wrong and actively seek to stop it.

That falls apart pretty quickly under examination.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Kidney donation has nothing to do with abortion. You are the only one trying to make up a comparison.

Hardly.
The unborn person is entirely dependant on the organs of another human being to survive... it REQUIRES them... and States like Alabama have said that the woman MUST provide them regardless of whether or not she wishes to..
Once the baby draws its first breath, Alabama says those "super rights" to the use of another person's organs, against their will, get immediately stripped away.

You may not like it, but thems the facts.

I still say the only equitable, consistent pro-life answer is to codify into law the retention of those super rights to demand the use of another person organs beyond birth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Hardly.
The unborn person is entirely dependant on the organs of another human being to survive... it REQUIRES them... and States like Alabama have said that the woman MUST provide them regardless of whether or not she wishes to..
Once the baby draws its first breath, Alabama says those "super rights" to another person's organs get immediately stripped away.

You may not like it, but thems the facts.

I still say the only equitable, consistent pro-life answer is to codify into law the retention of those super rights to demand the use of another person organs beyond birth.

Faulty violinist analogy again
 
Upvote 0