Should a woman being allowed to abort a rape baby?

So Sup Forums, should abortion be allowed in the case of a woman being raped?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yA8fgaBSDUw
youtube.com/watch?v=JquXlQTBWOo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes.

Only if the perpetrator is nonwhite.
If he's white, bitch is lying.

Women should be allowed to abort babies, period. You could argue about the time likit but thats it. Lest you want them calling up big daddy government to bleed you for kore tax money.

>infidel problems

She would not be raped if she dressed modestly and more importantly never left the house without her husband escorting her

No

Statistically you get more women lying about rape than you get women who were actually raped and happened to get pregnant

Yes

Also it should be mandatory if your colored or a registered democrat.

Nope.

The baby is not guilty of anything, it should not be punished.

/thread

If the father gives the all clear, sure.

>Also it should be mandatory if your colored or a registered democrat.
Now THIS I'll agree with.

Eugenics is one thing, but killing rape-babies does not necessarily carry any eugenic weight to it - historically, a huge proportion of the human population has been the product of rape.
Don't see why it's gotta stop now - of course, if its a nigger or mud or libshit, of course, kill it.
History also suggests that was likely the predominant course of humanity.

Pregnancy dramatically effects a woman medically. It would not be right to force a woman to pass on the genes of a rapist and force the family to raise it.
But what about ones who were raped against their will with lots of evidence?

Yes, abortion should be legal until the end of the first trimester.

imagine the etarnal butthurt if you forbid it.

But if that's true, Germans will be extinct within a few generations.
Same with the Netherlands, tbqh.

youtube.com/watch?v=yA8fgaBSDUw

Yes because she shouldn't be force to have a black child.

Of course

Aborting actual rape babies is for the better of society. If a man rapes a woman, the man should at least take care of the baby himself.

>americucks still discuss abortion

In any developed country abortion is allowed

No. Having babies forces women to stay in kitchen as they should.

>Pregnancy dramatically effects a woman medically.
And?

> It would not be right to force a woman to pass on the genes of a rapist and force the family to raise it.
That's nonsense.
It would not be 'right'?
It would be less right to murder someone because their father raped their mother to produce them.

Women have been having rape-babies for literal millennia with minimal no issue - she'll get over it.

Protip: Women are more likely to become pregnant during rape than they are during consensual sex. They're also more likely to have an orgasm.
That you're willing to murder a baby for the sake of keeping women from enduring hardship suggests you're exemplary of why feminism succeeded.

What bothers me is that in Brazil, people
Taking care of your family forces men to take responsibility. If a rapist does not even take care of his creation, then his genes should not pass on.

being an unwanted child is worse than death my dude

This desu. Usa is a shithole compared to nordic masterrace

> Aborting actual rape babies is for the better of society.
[citation needed]

> If a man rapes a woman, the man should at least take care of the baby himself.
Why?
The mother often doesn't even do that - and she likely won't want to if she was raped.
I'm not saying she has to care for the baby, it can be put up for adoption, but murdering a child because it was the product of rape is far more ethically/morally foul than allowing a woman to murder her own child because it was born of rape.

Again, women have been birthing rape babies for millennia, and there was little issue.
Some of history's greatest men were likely the product of rape.

What if someone raped your wife or your sister?

This.
The only reason abortion is even an issue in America is because abortion is allowed up ninth month afaik.
Also because America is filled to the brim with religious fanatics.

If you didn't stigmatize abortion so much there'd be less white niggers.
Niggers become niggers because they're unwanted and so the father bails on the kid.

Absolute nonsense my guy.

I know plenty of children raised via adoption and I don't think they'd agree with you, at all.

Existence is the most precious thing in the world, to deny someone the chance at existing for the sake of the fee-fees of their mother is ridiculously horrifically wrong in every conceivable moral context.

What if the abortion occurs very early in the pregnancy?

I'd tell them to have the baby and put it up for adoption if they didn't want it.
Your appeals to emotion will have no effect upon me.

My turn:
What if you were the product of rape?
Would you rather die, never exist at all, or get a chance to see the world and do good therein, to be the sole good thing to come out of a heinous act like rape?
The answer is obvious.

With lots of evidence she has to bring to
a judge to get her abortion cleared, then okay.

For minority women the process should be always accepted

I'm not a life at conception sort of guy, but I find it rather grotesque.

Absolute maximum of my willingness to compromise: No abortions after 18 weeks.
Period.

No. Nothing justifies the murder of a baby. Instead, make rape illegal.

Holy shit nederland
I kekd

>to deny someone the chance at existing for the sake of the fee-fees of their mother is ridiculously horrifically wrong in every conceivable moral context.
It isn't "fee-fees". I am talking about forced rape, not "I was drunk and I regret having sex with some guy.". Single-mother homes breed criminals and rapists.
>What if you were the product of rape?
I am not so that does not apply to me.
>I'd tell them to have the baby and put it up for adoption if they didn't want it.
cuck
>Your appeals to emotion will have no effect upon me.
Why do you cry over an embryo that is the product of rape then?

>For minority women the process should be always accepted

Better answer: Remove the minorities.

Then they aren't our problem, AND the rape rate drops staggeringly.
What they do amongst themselves is their own business.

If you killed a pregnant woman in self-defense, would you have murdered the baby?

>It isn't "fee-fees".
Yes, it is.
> I am talking about forced rape, not "I was drunk and I regret having sex with some guy.".
So am I.
> Single-mother homes breed criminals and rapists.
Put the child up for adoption.

Your only argumentation against birthing the child is the psychological well-being of the mother.
I don't give a shit about that in relation to the child's right to fucking exist.

> Dodging a theoretical
Wew lad.
> cuck
Conceptually impossible, as neither my mother nor my sister are my mate.
> Why do you cry
I don't - why do you cry over a woman doing the primary biological function of females just because she didn't consent to it?
Why do you support murder for fee-fees?

Yes, obviously.

If you had to save a young women or her pregnant young sister from a burning car who would you save? Same principle.

wtf I hate rape now

What is wrong with morning after pill? I suppose if somebody is held in captivity, raped, not rescued until its too late, bit still able to have abortion, that is a different story... hmm.

obvs yes

This. 18 weeks is plenty of time to take action.
So it should be illegal to defend youself from a pregnant woman?
Why should the genes of someone who has no self-control be passed on?
>Your only argumentation against birthing the child is the psychological well-being of the mother.
It isn't just the "psychological well-being of the mother", it is the well being of the mother, the family, and society as a whole. If you can't understand that, your probably a Muslim.

The morning after pill shouldn't exist.

Contraceptives and abortion have done likely-irreparable damage to women the world over.

They are a foundational pillar of feminism, and allow women to dissociate sex from reproduction, thus granting them access to the carousel.
These inventions are likely to be looked upon by future historians as integral in the downfall of Western civilization, because when you tell a woman she can fuck all she wants without any risk of becoming pregnant without her wanting it AND promoted a societal view wherein she is free to do as she likes, you've removed the only things holding her back from becoming a whore.

yes.

it's not a baby. It's a tiny rapist subhuman.

>It would be less right to murder someone because their father raped their mother to produce them.
>Women have been having rape-babies for literal millennia with minimal no issue - she'll get over it.

most rape in the US is done by nonwhites

do we really need to be having the discussion about why we dont want more mongrels?

>Single-mother homes breed criminals and rapists.
triply so might i add when the kid is a mongrel

Of course, you'd have to be fucked in the head to not allow it

You are blaming the symptoms, not the cause. If a women is good, she won't be promiscuous, even if she has access to birth control. Yes, women like this do exist.

Technological advancement is virtually unstoppable at this point. One day, balance will be restored.

>Why should the genes of someone who has no self-control be passed on?
Thats a strawman.
Plenty of people who rape have self-control, rape is not a matter of absence of control in all, nor even most, cases.
And, again, many of history's greatest men were likely the product of rape - the means via which you are created does not dictate the means via which you will exist.

> It isn't just the "psychological well-being of the mother",
Yes, it is.
> it is the well being of the mother,
The psychological well-being, you mean. If the life of the mother is in immediate risk as a result of the pregnancy, we can talk - but otherwise, no.
> the family,
Minimal effect, if any long term.
> and society as a whole.
Human society has had rape babies as a major component for most of its history.
It is not necessarily any sort of an improvement to alter that paradigm - as I said, some of history's greatest men and women have undoubtedly been the product of rape.

> If you can't understand that, your probably a Muslim.
Nope, European Agnostic Deist.
Your ad homs have even less effect on me than your emotional appeals.

What if your wife gets raped and gets pregnant?

If a pregnant women is attacking you, you should only kill her if she poses a threat to your life. If she does, then she killed her child with her act of assault and its consequences.

He is just a Cucklic who wants more degeneracy in the world. In Brazil, it is illegal abort a fetus that has been disabled by Zika. Just look at how crappy Brazil is, this is what he wants for America.

you should just stone the woman for having sex outside her marriage with no burka and throw her father off the roof for being gay

Sup Forums is the new reddit shit skins are welcome here.

Sup Forums is the new reddit shit skins are welcome here.

Sup Forums is the new reddit shit skins are welcome here.

So you think rape should be acceptable in society? There is a reason why Europe has accomplished so much more in comparison to Africa, dummy.

> most rape in the US is done by nonwhites
False.
Most interracial rape in the US is done by non-whites.
Rape is the sole category of violent crime wherein Whites are over-represented.

... Of course, non-Whites are still over-represented, just not so much (ex: Blacks, 13% of the US pop, account for ~33% of rapes in any given year, compared to their rate of 40-50%+ in all other violent criminal clades; meanwhile, Whites contribute about 65% of rapes, the only category in which they are not under-represented based on population).

> do we really need to be having the discussion about why we dont want more mongrels?
I already said minorities should be removed to eliminate that problem; however, in the event that's infeasible, abortion of mongrels and niglets is acceptable - they aren't human anyway.

> You are blaming the symptoms, not the cause.
False.
> If a women is good, she won't be promiscuous, even if she has access to birth control.
Also false.
> Yes, women like this do exist.
Maximum falsehood.

> Technological advancement is virtually unstoppable at this point.
Once exo-wombs are created, females will be slowly expunged from the population by the transhumanists, should they maintain power.
> One day, balance will be restored.
Doubtful.

>you should only kill her if she poses a threat to your life
That is called self-defense.

>So you think rape should be acceptable in society?
No.
But murder of babies produced by rape should not be an automatic, and not the option of the woman in question.

> There is a reason why Europe has accomplished so much more in comparison to Africa, dummy.
And it has nothing to do with rape - just look at the Vikings.

why do conservashits love big government telling the people what they are "allowed" to do?

what happened in 2004?

I'm an unwanted child, I would have rather been aborted.

you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. die in a fire.

A woman should be allowed to abort a baby for any reason since we need less fucking idiots having children.

You are not the first to ask that, and I don't know that we ever found out.

I know plenty of unwanted children who do not share your view.
My half-brother, for example.

You are attempting to employ a worthless anecdote as regards your broken psyche to apply to all of humanity.
And no, I will not die in a fire.
Try and make me.

>But murder of babies produced by rape should not be an automatic
It isn't murdering a baby, it is terminating a pregnancy in its early stages. Is masturbation also murder?
>And it has nothing to do with rape - just look at the Vikings.
What about the Vikings? What did the Vikings invent? The only time Europeans started to really progress intellectually is when rape stopped being the main form of reproduction. You should move to Rio, you would fit in there.

Actually, we - that is, White people - need basically anyone in our population to have more children.

Because we gave our women contraceptives and let them vote and go to college.
So now all they want to do is get drunk, have casual sex and pursue their careers.
Child-rearing comes secondary, if at all, in their priorities.

Meanwhile, Ahkmood has 4 wives and 23 children.
Take not, Britcuck, before you go extinct on your own shitty lil island. You should have learned from America's mistakes, but you didn't.
youtube.com/watch?v=JquXlQTBWOo

We should focus on quality, not quantity. Simply being white does not instantly make you intelligent or based.

>It isn't murdering a baby,
Yes, it is.
> it is terminating a pregnancy in its early stages.
Now you're adding caveats.
Prior to 18 weeks? You might convince me,
After that, no.
After 23 weeks, when you've got a 50% chance of survival if cut from the womb?
Fuck no.
Its murder.

> Is masturbation also murder?
Sperm is not life.
An egg is not life.
Sperm + egg = life.
That's when it becomes murder.
And you know as much.

>What about the Vikings?
They were extremely successful.
> What did the Vikings invent?
What did women?
> The only time Europeans started to really progress intellectually is when rape stopped being the main form of reproduction.
Absolute nonsense.
Rome was hugely advanced long before the Vikings even existed.
You're academically dishonest if you keep trying to make these claims.
> You should move to Rio, you would fit in there.
More worthless ad homs.
Better than emotional appeals, I guess.

> We should focus on quality, not quantity.
We don't have time.

> Simply being white does not instantly make you intelligent or based.
Actually, yes, it does.
Regression to the mean has been proven.
Two IQ 85 Whites can, in fact, produce IQ 100 children, and have a decent probabilistic shot of doing so.
I'm much smarter than either of my parents.

>Prior to 18 weeks? You might convince me,
It should be required even before that. If a woman is actually raped, she should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible. It should only be acceptable in the occasion of forced sexual intercourse or medical issues.
>Sperm + egg = life.
What makes you think a Zygote is a life? A Zygote is not sentient.

Human life is defined by sentience.
If a being is unable to perceive stimuli or be aware of its own existence it is not a human life.

Deal with moralfags.

>million degenerate march begging to be allowed to kill kids
kys frankly

>It should be required even before that.
That doesn't even make sense.
> If a woman is actually raped, she should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible.
You've failed to make a strong case for this view.
Repeatedly.
You're still not doing a very good job of it, I'm afraid.

> It should only be acceptable in the occasion of forced sexual intercourse or medical issues.
You've continually failed to justify requiring abortion in the context of rape.

>>Sperm + egg = life.
>What makes you think a Zygote is a life?
Because that is how life is created.
> A Zygote is not sentient.
It will be, if you don't kill it.

>The only reason abortion is even an issue in America is because abortion is allowed up ninth month afaik.
Nope. Not in the US.
State laws vary but generally it has to be done before the third trimester as that is when brain function really starts kicking in.

>If a being is unable to perceive stimuli or be aware of its own existence it is not a human life.
This is the most logical explanation. A human who cannot think is not truly a life.

By 23 weeks, if not sooner, it is sentient.
Therefore, by your own definition, it is human.
Thus, murder to kill it.

Deal with it degenerate.

Would traveling back in time to the creation of the earth, before life, and destroying it not be the same as wiping out the human race? If so, then abortion is murder.

Should you put down if someone rapes your mom?

There is your answer.

>It will be, if you don't kill it.
It is not yet, that is my point. So you must also think masturbation is murder? Babies are sentient, Zygotes are not

Yes.
One of the few cases which should be tolerated.

I'm for abortions, I just don't think it should be paid for with tax dollars. So I think that in rape cases, the abortion should initially be paid for by the legal system, with the cost added to the defendant's legal fees if found guilty, and the plaintiff's if not guilty.

Is a seed a tree?
No.
Can a seed become a tree if germinated and placed in soil?
Yes.
Are you killing a tree if you dig up a germinated seed and kill it?
Yes.

That said, if you share the logic of the aforementioned poster, you must stand with me in the context of suggesting that after approximately 23 weeks, at the very least, that is a human being you are seeking to kill.
Prior to that, its debatable, in the same context as the seed - if you leave it alone, it can become a human; thus, if you kill it, you are not killing what is presently a human, but what can (sans only your murderous intent) become one.

If the only thing keeping something from developing into a human is you killing it before it has the chance, that's basically still murder without some serious ethical/moral gymnastics.

what this fag says.

Rapists shouldn't be allowed to be reproductively succesful.

Women shouldn't be given the abortion to refuse a rape abortion.

>It is not yet, that is my point.
That depends - now you're moving the goal posts again.
After 23 weeks (and potentially earlier), by the definition provided, it is sentient, therefore it is human.

> So you must also think masturbation is murder?
Crushing some pollen is not equivalent to digging up a germinated seed out of the soil and snuffing it out.

> Babies are sentient, Zygotes are not
That depends entirely upon the time frame, which is variable from scenario to scenario.

Zygotes after about 23 weeks - and potentially earlier - are sentient.
What's more, zygotes before that period will become sentient comparatively shortly, sans only your murderous intent aimed at keeping it from doing so.

There is little meaningful differentiation IMHO between digging up a germinated seed from the soil and crushing it between your fingers, and plucking a sapling from the soil and doing the same.

Well, yes, but the main reason for it is to prevent suffering.
I didn't say that abortions were morally acceptable after the beginning of the third trimester you fucking retard.
In fact I didn't say anything about abortion at all., I defined when it becomes morally wrong to kill something.
>Would traveling back in time to the creation of the earth, before life, and destroying it not be the same as wiping out the human race?
Of course it wouldn't you fucking idiot. At most you could say it prevented the human race. That is the point of Time Travel, it brings you to a point in space-time where the things you perceive to have happened, have not happened, only will happen if you do not alter the timeline.
Using a theoretical concept of space-time manipulation to argue whether abortion should be permitted is just about the stupidest shit I've seen.

Because you feel this way, does not mean that others in your position do.

>Crushing some pollen is not equivalent to digging up a germinated seed out of the soil and snuffing it out.
Really? Why?

I thought about this yesterday, and i realized it comes down to the distinction between the collective and the individual. Basically, if you view a baby as the product of a woman, or as a product of the relationship between a man and a woman. In the first option, it would make sense for a woman to have so-called reproductive rights, a complete right to decide what she wants to do with the baby "My body, my choice" etc. However, if you take the second stance, then a decision to abort the pregnancy has to be taken by the man and the woman together (aka "the Family").

think it's pretty weird that some people here can casually say that 'welp rape happened alot in the past so why stop now?!' as if rape is not that big of a deal?? It's a traumatizing experience and i bet that half of the people saying that 'if its a white guy does it it isn't bad' or 'they used to do it all the time' would be bedridden for weeks if some guy came up to them and tore their ass to fucking shreds.

> I didn't say that abortions were morally acceptable after the beginning of the third trimester you fucking retard.
Neither did I.
The third trimester is 29 to 40 weeks - quite awhile after the average human fetus has achieved sentience.

> In fact I didn't say anything about abortion at all.
Neato sport. Except, given the context, and how you closed your commentary, you totally were making implications in the context of abortion.

> I defined when it becomes morally wrong to kill something.
And I employed that in the context of the discussion at hand.

They are conceptually different.

If you require further explanation of this, I will direct you to a botanist.

What is your point then? Would you allow a woman to terminate an early pregnancy if it was the result of a rape?
>They are conceptually different.
So is a fetus and sentient baby.

abortion should not be illegal you idiot.
>muh poor human life!
if you do not want your offspring then terminate it. Why is it any concern for the public at larger that you murder you unborn child?

Yes, because there's a good chance it will be black. The more black babies who are aborted, the more crime prevent.

What if it was a white rapist?

Oh, wait, I'm a biologist, that's kind of like a botanist...

... Pollen is not equivalent to a germinated seed in the soil, in that pollen alone, if left to itself, will not produce life.

A germinated seed is already alive, and once in soil, it is capable of further development.
Pollen, quite simply, is not.

Its like when the poster asked previously why masturbation is not equivalent to abortion.
It should be quite obvious - sperm are not, themselves, life.
They are a product of life.
When laid in combination with other products of life, they can produce additional life.
Once that process has begun, life will be created - unless something intervenes to inhibit that life, to snuff it out.

> So is a fetus and sentient baby.
Different contextual conceptual variance.
That differentiation in context should now be obvious to you, as should the conceptual variance.

> What is your point then?
It should be rather obvious, especially now.

> Would you allow a woman to terminate an early pregnancy if it was the result of a rape?
We've been over this - no, I would not.
A child should not bear the punishment for its father's crimes, a mother should not be allowed to murder her child for the sake of psychological convenience, and you've not made a strong case to suggest otherwise.

Strongly agree with you on that. We need moar human like you

>We've been over this - no, I would not.
Okay, how do you plan to impose your beliefs on others?

IOW: You've totally dissociated this into a matter of litigation.
How very Semitic of you.