King Arts
Well-known member
True but this is a moral argument not a benefit vs downside argument.
Let’s say the baby is born is it still ok to kill the baby born from rape? If your answer is different you aren’t being consistent.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Let’s say the baby is born is it still ok to kill the baby born from rape? If your answer is different you aren’t being consistent.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I do believe in bodily autonomy.
I'm just not selective about who gets it, llike you are; I believe in bodily autonomy for the baby too.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Awesome, so then if its body is autonomous, then it can stop depending on its mother!/s
Look, one side has formed their conclusions from purely logical grounds. I don't want a generation of unwanted children that grow up to be criminals and low-lives, nor do I want women to be forced to bear unwanted children they will only grow to hate. That's not fair on anyone, including their children.
The other side just wants to form laws based on scripture, which no civilized nation will allow. And there the argument ends, so please stop losing the Conservatives elections by insisting on it.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Bullshit.
Complete bullshit. I have no faith, I do not hold life as sacred, but I do accept the obvious. A baby, whether it's in clump of cells form, or later in it's development, is a baby. It's got it's own DNA. It's a different person.
The mother chose to create it, or at the very least, risk it's creation. If I go to a casino, and put all my money on the line, and fucking lose it, I don't magic up that money back, I have to deal with the results of my actions. The results of those women's actions is a new person growing inside them. They chose.
And, no, I don't think the mother should just be able to murder it. If I can't murder pedos and lawyers, then those women should not be able to murder their own kid.
There are people born without brains. They're seperate people, even if they're something that should be put down.
People should be killed for being scum, not because a bunch of women are unable to deal with their own actions.
On a matter of gut-level sentiment, I strongly agree with this. It makes total sense.
No man should be forced to raise other people's children. Stop. Nor should a woman be forced to carry to term a child as a result of rape.
Death penalty for the rapist, of course. And all the "oh but all life is saaaacred" people can go sit in a corner and cry.
Because no, all life is not sacred, and the right to life is not absolute or unconditional.
But pregnancy due to rape is a fringe case scenario, statistically. A sane approach to morality and law can make exceptions for the exceptional. "All or nothing" thinking is infantile.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
I can't believe I'm agreeing with @mrttao on something. But here we are!
I have no intentions of living in a crime ridden society just so you can punish anyone who has "unChristian" sex.
You can shout this as many times as you like, and ignore the counterarguments I already raised just as many times, but I fancy it will come to naught. For all you talk about not being religious, your political axioms are just Evangelical dogma. All you seem to oppose is the aesthetics rather than the policies.
I have no intentions of living in a crime ridden society just so you can punish anyone who has "unChristian" sex.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Biology. It's thing. From that, come instincts.
Religion came from those truths. They dress up the things that work.
There's a reason why every single religion supports a similar set of values, in result, if not name. Men in charge. Women in men's charge. Marrage being man with woman. And, when it's multiple, it's only ever multiple women.
And, some form of don't kill easily. This man/family has their position because God/Fate/Karma. If you're a pesant, that's where God started you, and you should only go up the way WE, the Church, accept.
ETC.
Churches exist to keep society running, in part for the benefit of the leaders, and in part, everybody else. They're not random fictions. They're tools. Ignore said tools, ignore the reason why said tools exist and work, and the results will be shit.
Want to unpack this a bit for us? I don't think anyone here wants to live in a "crime ridden society", nor is it obvious why punishing sexual sin would lead to that.
If anything, the sort of people who want to enforce Christian sexual morality on society also tend to be very much on the "Tough On Crime!" side of the divide.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Then why support policies that will lead to the same? I don't want any magical thinking, where you just pretend you don't know what the consequences of your policies will be.
They are performatively "Tough On Crime", just like those Leftist Bastards are performatively pro-poor. Their policies will lead to increased crime and suffering for law abiding citizens.
Explain to me how?
Is it something about people who would have been aborted growing up to the criminals instead?
DarthOne
☦️
Sounds a bit like Eugenics to me…
No, seriously, I’m pretty sure that’s one of the beliefs that people advocating for Eugenics back in the day had. That the kids of criminals where destined to become criminals themselves due to genetics.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
It's been proven by scientific study. A lot of abortions are done by lower class single mothers, whose children tend to grow up to be delinquents who then move into dangerous crime.
By removing this unwanted generation, we can create a safe and healthy society.
...What the fuck am I reading?
DarthOne
☦️
Eugenics. You are reading a pro-Eugenics belief.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Stop feeding the troll. Didn't you guys learn anything from the early internet?
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
There's a good bit of support for psychological factors having large genetic drives that does give some credence to the existence of a "natural underclass", but the way the crime rates change over time is pretty obviously environmental in nature. There wasn't exactly a genocide against inner city ghettos in the 90s, after all!
Simonbob
Well-known member
It's not quite that simple.
The big problem with eugenics has always been our lack of understanding of genetics coupled with the nature of the person capable of putting it into practice.
Genetics aren't a solved problem yet. That means, at best, we could kill millions and have a very minor effect on actual crime rates, and the nature of humans means you can't really isolate the genetics that are affecting such things.
This means that abortions being more common in one section of the population at one time, doesn't mean it'll stay there, and the cultural factors of the day, that'll change in responce, will also have effects.
In other words, it's going to be uncertain that removing a whole groups genetics will do anything specific, and abortion being common has many other cultural effects that might be worse. That'll only change when we truly understand our own genetics. It's likely to have some effect on crime rates, if it goes far enough, but..... There's been massive amounts of abortion in a number of nations, and crime rates don't seen to directly go with that...
Honestly needs more study, before I can speak with any real authority on that. I'm not sure about it, but it could well be true. However, next point is different.
Then there's the other big factor in eugenics. The kind of person who's willing and capable of putting them into practice is always going to be a monster, and they'll have to be a powerful enough monster to do so. Said monster is going to do things his way, and that's not likely to be up on the latest science. It's also going to be used more as a tool of control.
Honestly, if you're a monster, you might want to get rid of criminals, perhaps. But, you're also going to want to get rid of your rivals, and any group that might become a threat. That leads to Pol Pot, and a third of Cambodia getting killed, on the basis that they were educated.
Simonbob
Well-known member
To boil it down......
If you wanted to allow abortions on the basis of specific genetic diseases, or other truly horrible conditions, that's something we could discuss. If you wanted to sterilize any murderer and/or pedo, that's also something to be discussed. I might well be in favor of that kind of thing.
Allowing abortion at random affecting crime rates...... I've never heard of that before.
If it's true, will it make up for all the other effects of such unlimited abortions? I don't know.
And, neither do you.
If you wanted to allow abortions on the basis of specific genetic diseases, or other truly horrible conditions, that's something we could discuss. If you wanted to sterilize any murderer and/or pedo, that's also something to be discussed. I might well be in favor of that kind of thing.
Allowing abortion at random affecting crime rates...... I've never heard of that before.
If it's true, will it make up for all the other effects of such unlimited abortions? I don't know.
And, neither do you.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
It's hardly eugenics. It's just liberty.