Show of Hands

Glad you support murder...how dare I oppose it, I'm a super bad dude...gimme a break

I support not torturing child rape victims. I can't fathom why that's controversial.

I'll never understand why liberals don't have a problem with killing a defenseless baby...

☝️That.

Observe the conversation below my comment. There are some strong feelings on this subject.

I have mrmilkdud on ignore. He's a troll.

This should have been a response to someone who asked how many women actually did in childbirth. The girl lives in India, not the states, a country which has horrific care for pregnant women.

What's the percentage chance of an abortion killing an unborn baby?

On the subject of the age, I found the rate is 15 times higher for mothers "under 15", but I imagine as young as ten would be more

What's the percentage chance someone with a penis will ever have to deal with dying in child birth?

Ooh, I know, it's zero.

Actually, every compassionate father is quite heartbroken if his child dies at any stage. Your analogy doesn't work.

How many fathers die in childbirth? Zero. Not something men will ever have to worry about themselves.

A husband rather die than have his wife die so just stop this stupid talking point.

Yet here you are, willing to put someone else's family member in harm's way

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's a stupid talking point. Some women might willingly die in childbirth for their child to live, especially if the child is a product of a loving relationship. Some men, if capable of popping out babies themselves, might choose the same. Point being, this is a choice no man will ever have to make. A woman chooses go through with a birth that endangers their health, great. That's their choice. It's something else entirely when you give the woman no choice. And it's something else entirely when the woman is just a 10 year old child whose stepfather raped her and whose body can't handle pregnancy and childbirth. If every child is so precious, then why do we have so many children in the US (and all over the world) living in poverty, starving, being molested, and why are there so many children in our foster care system?

Foster homes do not mean that a kid is any less precious. It is a sign that parents were unable to meet the needs of the child. Either way, a precious life is being ignored by promoting abortion. Terminating an unborn baby is inexcusable.

The baby didn't commit a crime, but a ten year old girl shouldn't be force to carry a baby.

Bad situations occur, but that doesn't mean that a situation should be compounded through another immoral act.

"Forced" is a hyperbolic word that seeks to reverse the moral issues at work here.
Nobody is "forcing" anything by not interfering with a natural process that has already begun.
The only "force" being suggested here is the murder and removal of the baby.

Rape is part of a natural process?

Holyfuckingshit!

I think that's pretty semantic. She was forced to have sex with her step dad therefore, she was forced to become pregnant. Yes, her body was performing it's natural process of growing a baby, but I think it takes some Olympic level mental gymnastics to say she wasn't forced to carry the baby. In my opinion, no one should be forced to take care of someone who would die without that person's care if they got in that situation through no action of their own, plus, she could be hurt or killed since she is so young.

I love that you guys have to try so hard for some moral authority here that you'll actually accuse someone of being pro-rape just because they're not in favor of killing one of the victims of that same rape.

The chances of the young mothers death from early pregnancy is very high. In my opinion unacceptably high. The psychological damage from the rape, resultant pregnancy, and prospective adoption are also factors to consider. The he bible record is filled with many instances of Gods approval of death of innocents for the greater good. Your thoughts??

Ummm...the Bible is quite clear about supporting life at conception and for parents to put their lives before their child.

God has told us not to murder people.
Killing the baby won't change the fact that she was raped.
It will only pile one act of violence and injustice on top of another.

What if there were a 50-50 chance that both baby and mother would die. Would that change your thoughts?

When did you trade your moral code in for a calculator?
Murder is murder.

Interesting thought. Firemen and Coast Guard Swimmers make this decision all the time. They weigh calculated risks and make decision who to rescue and who not to, based upon responsible application of resources. In this case, if this were my loved one, it would become a very complicated and difficult decision to make. It would not be as easy for me as it appears to be for you.

A lifeguard does not ever pull the trigger. An abortionist does.

Do firemen and the coast guard actively kill people in the course of their duties?

That puts a nasty spin on "calling 911."

So the entire issue being against a ten year old having a rape caused abortion is your stupid god?

Ya that is retarded. I'm done here.

PS, your god sucks then for allowing the rape of ten year olds, and not worthy of worship.

No but they often have to decide to rescue or not to rescue. They are putting one life above the other. I honestly do not expect to present a convincing argument here. I was raising questions to a true my complex questions. There are plenty of times when a pregnancy has to be terminated to protect a mothers life. There are plenty of biblical examples of god instructing man to take another's life. And there are biblical commands to the contrary.

Hammeringman brought God into this, krazywolf, not me.

Doctalk, deliberately and directly killing a child in the womb is not comparable to a fireman realizing he can only save one of two people.
I don't expect you to understand the difference, because it's a complex ethical and moral issue, and liberals typically judge these issues by the very superficial, simple moral standards of hedonism or (as you already demonstrated) utilitarianism.

You have made several erroneous assumptions. This is not doctalk. The moral dilemma was previously presented. Not everyone who disagrees with you lacks a moral compass.

However, you have a long history of successfully engaging in an argument so I will disengage at this point.

"This is not doctalk"
Everyone knows you're doctalk.

Have a nice night.

To me, this seems to mirror the trolley problem. Let one die to save the others.

Should someone be charged with murder for not risking their life to save another? I don't think that situation is much different then the one we are arguing about, and I don't think it would be fair to punish someone for a lack of action.

You're all forgetting that babies have to actively be aborted.

You are forgetting that that action will most likely save the mothers life

I can understand how you see it that way, but to me, she is actively keeping that baby alive and will take a risk when giving birth. The abortion would be her choosing to not take the risk keeping that baby alive and honestly, I don't blame her for that choice.

By that logic, we should have executed half the passengers on the titanic before it hit the ice berg.

Except boarding the titanic wasn't knowingly putting your life at risk

Now you're making the argument that the baby knowingly put his life at risk by being conceived?

I would like to hear that argument laid out.

No, the mother would be knowingly putting her life at risk by giving birth.

She's definitely putting the baby's life at risk by killing it.

So youd force her to risk her life for someone else? Why don't we force you to rescue someone from a burning building?

I'm not allowing her to actively kill an innocent person to save her own life.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you should be allowed to kill innocent people whenever it might give you a better chance of survival.

I don't understand that logic at all.

Unless you started the fire, you didn't cause the person to die in the fire intentionally.

Yeah, I do think you should be allowed to kill someone when they threaten your survival. Its called self defense.

By that logic, we should be able to attack anyone for almost any reason, as long as we can make a case that they might somehow "threaten our survival."

I would run out of bullets driving on the freeway.

And at job interviews, and if I have to wait in line in an emergency room.

Except this is more than "slightly threatened" the chance of surviving this birth is less than surviving a bullet wound. So if you can kill someone whos about to shoot you in self defense she can get an abortion

Now we're back to innocent people vs threatening people.

Giving birth to this baby is threatening her more than getting shot. If you can kill to avoid getting shot she can kill to avoid giving birth

The difference is that the "threat" the baby poses is due to its mere existence. That's substantially different than if the baby was actively trying to kill the mother as an intruder would kill a homeowner.
When else do you get to kill people because you find their mere existence threatening?

I can't reply for about an hour after this.

Then what of the innocent children killed by police because they found them threatening?

And why does it matter the manner in which the person is killed? Their life is still threatened, and they have a right to defend it, with lethal force if necessary

And now we're back to playing with the word "threatened."

Are you going in circles because you have nowhere else to go? Or because you don't realize we've already addressed the points you're bringing up?

It's not ok to kill innocent people just because you feel threatened by their existence.
That applies to abortion as much as it does to anything else.

So you can't kill someone for trying to shoot you?

Is the baby actually, actively attempting to kill the mother?

Also, by that same logic, the instant the mother commits to having the baby murdered, I should be free to kill her because she poses a threat to another person.

Yes. It is. And shes acting in self defense.

So now you think the baby is self aware and capable of forethought or intent?

You're stepping all over prochoice talking points.

The baby is directly harming the mother. Not consciously but it is.

"The baby is directly harming the mother."

Are you proposing a new scenario now?
I'm not sure how much you know about pregnancy, but simply being pregnant does not equate to the baby directly threatening the life of the mother.

And even so, we're still back to the problem of you morally justifying murdering someone simply because you feel threatened by their existence. That's pretty much how North Korea feels about the entire world.

Look, the problem at the core of your argument is that you aren't even really arguing in favor of abortion to save the life of the mother- which is problematic, but for other reasons.

You're arguing in favor of abortion as a pre-emotive action in the event the life of the mother MIGHT be threatened.

I think the only people who really support that brand of barbarism are the alt right, as long as it's in regard to missiles pointed at brown, non-Americans, and people who support abortion at any time for any reason.
In other words, you aren't in good company.

Cutoff:

*In other words, you aren't in good company.

529,000 women die each year from childbirth
Women under 15 are FIVE times more likely to die than those over 20
Childbirth is the leading cause of death for girls 15 to 19
Infants born to adolescents are less likely to survive.
A pregnant 11 y/o risks cannot be fairly estimated as their are too few cases to review.

I could cite all sorts of crime statistics that demonstrate certain types of people (by race, socioeconomic status, etc) tend to commit murder more often.

Does that mean I should be allowed to pre-emptively kill them in the name of self defense?

Of course not. Similarly, those statistics only show that a risk may be present in some cases- it doesn't make the case that we should assume every pregnancy is a threat.

It also doesn't support the position that murdering the child is the only way to deal with problems that might arise.

In a complicated pregnancy where it is clearly an "only one can survive" case, would you chose the mother or the child or would you let them both die to avoid having to make that challenging choice?

In reality, such cases aren't represented by the statistics you listed.
There are no emergency conditions where the only way to save the mother is to actively kill the child.
The closest thing you could claim would be something like an ectopic pregnancy- but in that case, there is actually zero chance the child will live. And even then, abortion isn't the recommended treatment. Removal of the Fallopian tube is, and the death of the child is considered a secondary effect, not a deliberate abortion.

Here's a beginner's guide to the principle of double effect.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

It might save us a lot of time if you read it.

Absolutely. Every pedophile should be given the death penalty immediately.

I agree completely. If you ruin someones entire life like that, then you don't deserve to live your own.

Thats one of the cases I agree with Abortion. The stepfather shouldn't only be punished for rape, but for murder of a baby, as it's his fault a child won't be born.

Should they kill more 10 year old rape victims as well?

No one should kill rape victims of any age. I don't know how you inferred that forbidding abortion is akin to death

By forcing a 10 year old to give birth, you may as well give her a death sentence.

But that's ok right?

Nope - having a baby is not a death sentence.

Abortion is a death sentence.

It very well may be a death sentence because she's 10 years old.

Do you not know what child birth entails?

Your argument is based upon "what ifs." My argument concretely asserts that an innocent life will be put to death if an abortion is performed. Are you willing to assert that one human life is more valuable than another?

That's not true. There are six year olds who have given birth to healthy children and survived. It's awful that anyone so young would become pregnant, but it's physically possible for them to safely have a child.

Yes I will do what ifs when a ten year olds life is on the line.

I'd rather she abort than risk death for your feelings.

You don't seem to understand that an unborn baby is a human life.

I don't care.

You'd risk both. I'd rather the victim live.

You don't seem to understand that ending 1 persons life is better than ending 2 people's lives

You assume that the mother is going to die. Do you realize how rare a woman dies during child birth?

Do you realize how often children die, especially those as young as 10, giving child birth, especially more so when in a third world country like India

Childbirth is deadly in the third world, for those of any age.

The unborn baby shouldn't be punished for the stepfather's sin.

What about the child already alive who has been raped repeatedly? Don't you think she has been punished enough? She doesn't deserve to die.

The "baby" shouldn't exist.

Yes, think of me what you will but I'd gladly hand the girl an abortion pill than force her to have a rape baby at TEN YEARS OLD!

The 10 year old did nothing wrong but neither did the unborn baby. If either dies, the stepdad should be charged with murder.

Krazy, you must not think that the unborn baby is equal to a human who is born.

So you're going to essentially kill the child so you can charge the father?

Given India's maternal mortality rate, plus the modifier of her being 10 years old, its 1 in 5 that they both die.

No - I'm the one advocating for life here.

Abortion kills 1 victim
Birth kills 2
There is not alternative scenario where both survive. That is a pipe dream. Have your pick, I know what I'm choosing

False dichotomy - both could live.

Both could live but I would put the chance between 5-10%

How do you come up with that percentage?

1 in 5 they both die, 2 in 5 one of them dies.

2 in 5 they both live?

That's less than 50/50.

That's not true. There are six year olds who have given birth to healthy children and survived. It's awful that anyone so young would become pregnant, but it's physically possible for them to safely have a child.

Physically possible, but unlikely amd dangerous

My point is that if there's any chance that both can live, then we should take it. Firefighters don't rescue one victim of a fire and then refuse to come back for the next one because they are afraid someone else might die in the process. She can give birth to her child and, due to the unfortunate circumstances, doing so is the only moral option for the girl and society at large.

Uh, yeah, firefighters do that. They wont go into a building to save someone with there's too big a chance they would die too.

False equivalency. Firefighters choose to give their lives for the people they are saving. This 10 year old child should not be forced to sacrifice her life to save an unborn child

Its about four times more likely she survives getting shot than giving birth.

It's more similar to a random man off the street being forced to run into a burning building just to find out that there is nobody in there to save (high infant mortality & high death during childbirth rate)

Y: everyone here agrees that she would most likely not die in the procedure, so your point is exaggerated. I realize the analogy has limitations, but regardless of whether or not someone opted into an arrangement with their own volition, people have an obligation not to perform actions that would inevitably lead to the demise of another person.

Mystic: Where are you getting your statistics?

Google. Being under 15 multiplies the chance one or both die by 15. Take India's maternal mortality rate, multiply by fifteen, you get a 20% chance she dies. Meanwhile, only 5% of gunshot wounds are fatal.

Think about it this way: how do you think giving birth is going to go for a ten year old?

It is not wrong here.

10 year olds are not know for surviving child birth.

Anyone who'd force this little girl to follow through to birth are monsters.

Yup and this mentality usually comes from men who have no clue what childbirth does to a woman's body's, let alone a 10 year old. Not to mention the emotional ramifications of it, on top of the trauma she is already experiencing being a rape victim. Most guys couldn't handle ten seconds of what this child has already endured in her lifetime.

100% agreed Dawl.

The pro-abortionist attitudes all comes from those who have been born as well. "You are a man" argument isn't very strong. It only makes an excuse for the tragedy of losing a human life. As I have said, I have the greatest sympathy for the 10 year girl, but that is no excuse for murdering an unborn baby.

A 10 year old can die in child birth or end up with life-altering health problems (not including the mental health issues she will have for life). I can't understand the mentality that in all cases an unborn baby's life is always more precious than that of the mother, especially in this case in which the mother is a child herself. But then the baby is born and many of these same "pro-life" people don't support social services to help the very babies they feel were so precious pre-birth.

Forcing a 10 year old to give birth may as well be considered murder when she dies on the table.

Agreed, krayze.

"can die"

An abortion definitely kills. If your argument and reasoning is based upon which would scenario has a higher possibility of more people living, you should be against abortion because abortions automatically kill a human life.

Rather the fetus be aborted than risk two deaths. One of which is only 10.

The responses here aren't surprising though. How many of you don't believe that an unborn baby is a human?

That matters not when talking about the life of a ten year old rape victim.

Oh...please show me statistically how often a woman dies during child birth.

For ten year olds?

Do you believe an unborn baby is a human life?

Girls under the age of 15 have five times the maternal mortality rate of those over 20.

Yes. Obviously. Still it doesn't matter.

TEN YEARS OLD!

Stop being a monster.

I'm the one promoting life. How am I the monster? You are the one who would willingly give an abortion pill to a 10 year old.

There's a 1 in 5 chance they both die.

100% chance that 1 dies if an abortion is performed. You do the math if your reasoning is based on probability.

So youre totally Cool with giving an innocent girl and her child only slightly better than a coin flip to live just so you can maybe save the kid?

I'm not for murdering an unborn baby. It is entirely possible that both will survive.

Gee. With the internets, that's possible. According to UNICEF, in India specifically the death rate for women in childbirth is better than it used to be at 178 deaths per hundred thousand. India is highly populated with a little over 1.3 billion from what I found. Divide that by 100,000 and multiply that answer by 178 and you end up with 2.3 million women dying in childbirth in India. unicef.in/Whatwedo/1/Maternal-Health Death rate is worse for "adolescents" than grown women apparently. How about a 10 year old who isn't even an adolescent yet? What are her chances? India is one of the worst countries in the world to be a woman.