• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ), May 20, 2019.

  1. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,662
    Anabaptist
    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.
     
  2. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    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.
     
  3. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,856
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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".

    A human being with Special "super rights" that get stripped away once it draws its first breath.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  4. MournfulWatcher

    MournfulWatcher In the beginning was the Word.

    316
    +348
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    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.
     
  5. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,856
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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."
     
  6. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,856
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    No mother is required by law to breastfeed.
     
  7. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +5,572
    Non-Denom
    Single
    But complete autonomy as a citizen isn't there until the age of 18 while still living under the mother's roof.
     
  8. Aldebaran

    Aldebaran Star Power!

    +5,572
    Non-Denom
    Single
    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.
     
  9. MournfulWatcher

    MournfulWatcher In the beginning was the Word.

    316
    +348
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    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?
     
  10. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +725
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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?
     
  11. St_Worm2

    St_Worm2 Senior Member Supporter

    +38,560
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    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
    .
     
  12. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Tell that to the local La Leche League. ;)
     
  13. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +725
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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?
     
  14. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Considering some who are responding to you have actually adopted and fostered children, I would say they would know best.
     
  15. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +725
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    [​IMG]
    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.
     
  16. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,856
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  17. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +725
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Kidney donation has nothing to do with abortion. You are the only one trying to make up a comparison.
     
  18. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  19. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,856
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  20. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,430
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Faulty violinist analogy again
     
Loading...