A lot of people who are against abortion are okay with it in cases of rape. Why is that...

A lot of people who are against abortion are okay with it in cases of rape. Why is that? The baby didn't do anything to you--why should it die for its father's crime?

>get raped
>take morning after pill

problem solved. I don't understand the problem.

that's because those people deny women women are asking for rape (which they ARE)

Because the baby will at least be half black.

What if I told you that it should be mandatory for rape babies to be aborted?

The same people who want to illegalize rape often also want to illegalize the morning after pill

Hope that helps.

why SHOULD a woman not fulfill her biological function of breeding?

Up until 50 years ago, rape was a legitimate evolutionary tactic to reproduce. What's the problem?

Eventually humans will evolve to where they don't rape anymore because rape victims will just abort the babies anyway.

I think it's the one on the right. It just looks like a rape baby.

>Implying intelligence and demeanor, and by extension, likelihood of committing crimes (including rape), isn't at least partially hereditary

Besides which, why would you want to give rape legitimacy as a reproductive strategy? It is the ultimate r-selected behavior.

will women exterminate the human species?

Holy shit did I fuck that one up.

Illegalize abortion, not rape. Rape is already super illegal.

I think abortion should be illegal, unless the child poses a serious threat to the mother's life. I think the morning after pill should be restricted for the general population, but allowed in cases of rape.

Republicans are against abortion and against birth control. This makes abortion rapes complicated.

If you don't pop plan Bs like candy after you just got raped, then you probably deserved it....

trick question, BOTH

Hard to tell, can't see which baby is black.

No, because it's in their interest to propagate their genes

The irony is that because women are so selective of men's height, eventually men will desire tall women because tall women give birth to tall men.

The problem with abortion is that it's preemptively ending a life and a process that's already been put into motion. That's no different from the morning after pill. It's not exempt just because it has a euphemistic name.

what if midgets start a gang of women kidnappers?
will we see steroid-ridden midget fighting scrwany tall guys? =DD

DAMNIT you caught yourself you bastard. Here I was thinking you were in favor of legalizing rape.

Kek

With no survivors.

Underrated

>illegalize rape
>kek
LOOK, EVERYONE RAPE EXISTS FOR A REASON. EVEN IF IT'S ILLEGAL, NATURE STILL WANTS YOU TO HAVE BABIES. IF GETTING PUT IN THE SLAMMER IS YOUR BEST SHOT, NATURE SAYS GO FOR IT

>being against abortions
Do you fags dislike eugenics or something?

BETTER YET IS BEING A COMPULSIVE SPERM DONER. FREE KIDS AND NO OBLIGATIONS. NATURE IS SCREAMING GO FOR IT

I think when the majority of people say they dislike abortions they mean the crazy late term abortions made at discretion of the mother. Morning after pill is extremely early term abortion, so personally I don't see the issue (in the particular case of rape). I think right now, the issue is that abortion laws are too permissive.

Women's desire to have abortions will be wiped out in the future. This is because it's better to simply have a baby and put it up for adoption at the very least. That gives the best chance of passing on your genes.

I'm going to guess the darker one on the right.... I'm not a racists or anything, I'm simply using statistical data here :^)

Why should a woman be forced to give birth to a rape baby?

>A lot of people who are against abortion are okay with it in cases of rape.
It's a compromise
>The baby didn't do anything to you--why should it die for its father's crime?
Yeah, when you put it that way, it doesn't sit well with me either but people have to make tough decisions.
There's a hypothetical question that's perfect for this, it involves a train.

based leaf

What's the fundamental difference between aborting six seconds after conception or six months? How is the former okay but the latter isn't? You're killing the baby either way, just at different stages of development. What's the fundamental difference between killing a newborn and a toddler? Same thing.

Definitely the one on the right. looks negroid

good question OP. I am against abortion in non-rape cases, pretty much in all cases except maybe the mother's life in danger (but even then it shold be her choice). AS for rape, i think it's a very grey area, but let's face it most 'bareback' rape will not be a nice white guy with good genes - almost every time it will be degenerate , nonwhite, ex felon. So in that case abortion is pretty much all you can do.
But this is a good question. a very good question. I'd say in cases of rape the mother should have a choice, but I am open to arguments otherwise. Hit me with your best arguments pol/.

Because the inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months isn't even comparable to the inconvenience of being murdered?

Because a rape baby has genes from the rapist and will grow up to be a criminal himself.

Aborting rape babies is simple eugenics.

whats the difference between killing when it is an egg? when it is just a sperm cell?

"The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:

The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation."

But you will never experience being raped and carrying a rapist's baby for nine months and then witnessing the birth of the child of the man who forced himself on you.

So, why should you be allowed to force a woman to give birth to a rape baby?

what if the woman asks for the rape?
like the ones no using full burka?

The one on the right looks negroid to me, so it's probably that one.

>why should it die for its father's crime?
Why should the mother have to live daily with being reminded of what is a highly traumatic situation?

The one with the KANG skull

It isn't about whether it's murder.

Abortion is either always murder or never murder, depending on how you define murder.

That out of the way, the reason people support it is they consider it justifiable homicide because the mother won't love it.

I sorta agree with that logic.

Then you grab her by the pussy and get to work.

Would you really want a half nigger rape baby?

Because she doesn't have a husband you fucking degenerate.

The black one.

Being murdered is very convenient.

You just aren't alive anymore, and therefore your physical self can't be conscious.

Maybe if you have a soul it will fuck off somewhere, but simply speaking about the you that is a physical creature will not experience any inconvenience.

A lot of people who are against abortion don't live in the pregnant woman's body so the whole thing is absolutely none of their fucking business.

>You can kill somebody because they give you bad memories

Ethics 101 amirite

I disagree with you mostly because I think killing infants should be allowed.

the black one

That's what the supreme court said so good enough desu fampai.

Keeping a rape baby is rewarding the rapist crime and behavior.

it's just like the raped wife paradox, you abort the mongrel and divorce the used goods, at least here in mexico the law is on your side if that's the reason for your divorce.

First and only good leaf post of the month
>>>/reddit/

Because you are propagating rapist DNA, which will create more rapists.

Rape or not, abortion should be mandatory, especially for you anti-abortion cucks.

...

The black one

Just like A lot of people who are against me killing my mother-in-law don't live in the same house as her, so the whole thing is absolutely none of their fucking business.

Are you retarded? Sperm cells don't turn into humans. Unfertilized egg cells don't turn into humans. A fertilized egg cell, however, does, and it's a new, unique, distinct organism that has its parents' combined DNA and will be a baby in just a matter of months. That's what you're potentially killing when you take a morning after pill.

Freudian slip eh?

>why should it die for its father's crime?
Eugenics.
The father was a sub-human.
Don't be an ass and pretend that behaviour isn't genetic.

If your mother-in-law happens to be inside of your body, you are more than welcome to have her removed.

The reason not to kill someone is usually based on the notion of justice and equality under the state.

Of course just incidentally causing you bad memories isn't ever going to justify killing someone, but without the ethical implications of a justice system you would kill the rapist, so I don't see your point.

My point here being that the infant exists outside the protection of citizenship and there's no practical self interest reason for you to be ethically compelled to not murder them seeing as you will never become a baby so babies being murdered doesn't hurt you at all.

On the other hand, you have a self interest ethical imperative to not kill old people because you will become one.

Now, if you try to base it on Utilitarian ethics it depends on the definition of a person, and if you try to base it on Deontological ethics it depends on the definition of murder or person.

Ultimately each ethical system is just a model of a physical system called the human race, the usefulness of ethics is in describing things so that people can communicate with each other about what is better, in practice you need to start from some kind of common ground since we have never settled on one ethical framework for all of mankind like we settled on one model of chemistry.

you are only killing it in the case that it does not prevent or delay ovulation. As I said, in the case of rape it should be considered as a solution, rather than using fringe cases to justify abortions up to 3 months in

It's actually easier than that.

If your mother in law requires drugs you have in your house, it's legal for you to not let her in, it's your house after-all.

Whether it's ethical to do that is more complex, generally it is not.

I think women should have to sign a paper that basically states they are guilty of murder prior to going through with the abortion. The paper requires the woman to complete 200 hours of community service, or they can pay a substantial fine ($10,000 or so) to avoid doing the hours. Furthermore, getting an abortion would put them in a database that prevents them from getting another abortion for 5 years.

Also this. Some aspects of behavior can be influenced by genetics.

Same reason people who have their kids taken away or abuse kids should be sterilized.

If you make abortion illegal except in cases of rape all of a sudden you're going to have a lot of 'rapes'

>which one is the rape baby
which ever one is the nigger baby

You're correct, but it's a battle that republicans/conservatives simply cannot win due to all the ground that's been sacrificed. We must take small victories, otherwise we'll completely lose the woman vote.


It is far more reasonable to the average person to allow for abortion only in cases of rape/danger to mother, than to say that all life must is precious (even though it's a fallacious argument)

only whores, who deserve it, and feminists, who are liars, get "raped" for the most part

real rape is pretty rare outside of third world shitholes

also, abortion is a good thing. the only way i'd support banning it is if it only applied to whites

Literally true.

Also rapists are usually rapists because of genetics. We need to extinct the trait

I don't love niggers. Can I murder them?

>giving minorities more rights than whites
>land of the free

>you can kill it if it's in your body
>two women get pregnant at the same time
>the first woman gives birth prematurely after only 36 weeks of the 40 week pregnancy period
>the baby is regarded as a proper human
>the other woman at 38 weeks decides to abort the baby because it's inside her and her choice.
>this is okay

So humanhood is determined only once you exit the womb?
That's totally unethical. Both of those babies are equally human and neither deserve murder

Rape babies can't be allowed for two reasons

1. Breeding. Rape babies carry the rapist's genes. You're allowing those genes to spread.
2. Burden. You're forcing the victim of a rape to shoulder the burden of raising the rapist's baby against their will.

I think it's usually because the woman didn't have the choice of wanting the baby. It's not fair that a woman gets raped and should be forced to have the rapist's child too.

I'll never experience having acid thrown on my face by my Muslim husband. I'll never experience having my hands cut off by my neighbor for being a Tutsi. I'll never experience getting kidnapped and tortured by the government for an MKUltra subproject. I'll never experience a lot of unpleasant things. So what? I don't need to be eligible to experience something to pass judgement on it. Is getting impregnated against your will by a rapist a pleasant experience? No. Does it justify killing an innocent baby that hasn't done anything to you? Fuck no.

>no practical self interest reason
My sense of ethics does not require me to gain personal benefit outside of not feeling like an asshole. As far as I'm concerned past the first month, a baby should only be killed if it is directly threatening the mothers life. You can argue about when the developing baby can no longer be killed (3 months is way too late though, look at a 2 month old in-vitro. That is not a bundle of cells) However whether your mother was raped or not doesn't change whether or not you can be killed when you are alive, so it should not change just because you're in the womb.

The common ground is "Don't do to others what they wouldn't want done to themselves" and self-perpetuation, apart from maybe procreation, is the fundamental drive of all living things. Just because a womb-baby isn't conscious doesn't excuse mistreating it either; else it'd be perfectly fine to murder people in themselves.

The one on the right

Thank you for saying this to this guyso much more eloquently than I could've.

If your definition of some spermatozoa and an ova is "someone" then yeah, sure m8. Murdering that poor defenseless child with hormones is completely reprehensible. Of course if you're a sane, reasonable human being you'd hate the thought of looking at a child you love being reminded of the fact that some cunt had his jollies with you without your permission just because he was selfish and on a power trip.

>Rape baby is Mudslime
>Part inbred\
That's what I have a problem with.

murder people in their sleep*

wtf looks like i'm the one who needs sleep

but in short; im subconsciously okay with eugenics and such but i find this particular hypocrasy retarded from an objective logical standpoint as it basically turns the debate from "it doesnt matter if its a baby or not because mothers feels" to "mothers feels are irrelevant unless the feels are rape related" which is ofc stupid

You aren't their mother, the consequences are different.

the more I learn about and am exposed to the miracle of life the more it disgusts me

It's ok to kill people you mong.

What the fuck do you think a war is?

Because it probably wasnt the womans fault at all. If she consented then she should have to keep it for being a dumbass and not being careful

Strangely enough all countries where medical abortion or DNC's are permitted have very clear guidelines for what stages of term a woman can abort at. Anything done after these dates is probably a medical descision based on the survival of the mother or foetus.

>The baby didn't do anything to you--why should it die for its father's crime?
implying that world is so much awesome place to live in that its worth ruining/make harder some womans live, .
bringing the child to this world if you cant provide him a god live is a moral crime, and people in socialist countries do this for money

Im for eugenics but not abortion

>If your definition of some spermatozoa and an ova is "someone" then yeah, sure m8
I never said that you wot m8. My personal idea of when abortion ceases to be understandable is between 1-2ish months. After that point if you can kill a 3 month year old wombfant you should be able to kill a newborn.

Also he didn't actually say anything eloquently. He just blindsided you with lots of moral philosophy terms that, whilst accurately used, did not actually address anything I directly stated, only laid out a hypothetical framework for deciding ethics.

Again, the ethical calculation when deciding whether or not a being should live is based upon the -being- itself, not those surrounding it, unless the being itself is a violent psychopath of some kind.

You both missed the point, the point being that the people who use the "except for rape" argument claim that you can't abort because of the baby's rights. But saying the baby has no rights as soon as the mother might have some kind of feels later on makes no sense as it removes the babys position from the equation when the entire justification was based upon the baby in the first place. Capiche?

at this point whites are too stupid to help themselves

see europe

I never said because it isn't conscious.

I said it isn't practical for you to have a strong moral duty to a baby since you will never become one, and there are plenty of them. I also said in another post I think that killing infants should be fair game.

I definitely think that it's wrong to have an abortion all other things being equal, and I would never get one, I didn't have sex until I was married. The issue is that dumb and evil people are the ones who want abortions, so them getting them is a net gain to society.

You can also look at it like this, there is a spectrum between stuff that is totally fine, forcefully evicting someone from your property, and murdering them. With that sorta deontological concept that it's better to let someone die than to intentionally kill them, and better to kill someone by taking something from them than by doing it personally.

>Terminations of pregnancy after 20 weeks are only likely to be agreed to by
members of the panel under section 334(7) of the Health Act where there
are very strong indications of a problem affecting the woman or fetal (e.g.
fetal abnormalities, serious medical or psychiatric conditions of the woman).

she got a nice body

The black one