11 3

Isn't it immoral for a woman not to have an abortion after becoming pregnant resulting from a rape? I presume that a baby from a rapist father won't receive the same love and care than otherwise. Also, why to propagate the genes of a rapist?

zesty 7 Sep 3

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It's all about choice. I'm pro-choice as all get out, which means it's the rape victim's choice to decide what's best for her


I can't imagine being able to love the result of being raped. The most important thing is that each woman has to understand her own limitations. I only had one child because I feel like I have a limited amount of love to give and wouldn't have felt as much for a second child.


Who says what’s immoral or not immoral?Morality is a matter of opinion and Geographic location of individual ,religious upbringing,etc,


Another way to phrase this is: "Is it okay to kill an embryo/fetus/baby/human to pay for the sins of their parent?"

I find it interesting that people avoid talking about the embryo/fetus/baby/human animal.

Let's talk about it. For a moment consider it as a newly fertilized egg, an embryo. Now how can science and agnosticism inform the woman facing such a situation?

Well, science tells us that the embryo is simply a ball of chemicals, but not just any random set. These are chemicals that have a 3.5 billion year lineage. They came from a set of self-replicating chemicals long ago, that survived by chance, albeit a better chance than most. All it has to do to survive is replicate itself before it got destroyed. We all come from this line of self-replicating batch of chemicals. Every single one of our ancestors, from primordial life onwards, have lived long enough to self-replicate, have children, before death. We all come from a long line of survivors. When we look at that embryo and ourselves we should see that.

We should also see that without any outside interference, the embryo will likely and naturally lead to the birth of a human child at the direct expense of the mother and very likely her family. The embryo, due to the event of rape, has started a path, the arc from life to death. The sperm cannot do this, the egg cannot do this. Only the embryo has the ability to transform to a human animal in the woman's uterus.

Agnosticism informs us that there we don't know that there is an after life, and science informs us there very likely isn't. The same thing can be said about the soul. This means that this life is the only one the embryo will ever get to experience.

With all that in mind, I ask, should an embryo be destroyed simply because one of it's biological parents commited a heinous crime? Shouldn't we instead punish the criminal, and not blame a child?

That said I am trying to think about "genetic lineage rights". We all inherited our genes, and we are the custodians, the protectors of it, before we pass it on. We may not like it but perhaps a parent should have the right to decide which genes pass on. And this may results it an action that is deeply upsetting. Well, its upsetting to me: that a parent may be given the right to kill their child based on genetic lineage rights. Is protecting the genes more important than the life carrying it? I feel that it isn't, but I have no logic behing it yet.

Anyways, at no point, using science and agnosticism, can I find any reason to destroy an embryo, essentially for a parent to kill a child based on the wrongs of suffured at the hand of the other parent. Punish the wrongdoer, not it's child.

That's all the sense I can make of it.

Yes, we all have genetic lineage. However,it is the mothers body. If my womb gets contaminated by a rapist"s sperm, all bets are off. I'll simple eliminate both contaminats as soon as I can.


Good point. I believe is she wants it she should have it no question asked but on the other hand if she wish to have it That is her choice also. Every situation and women is different. Controversial question.


I am pro-life but this should be a woman's choice alone.


The best method for avoiding this situation is 100% safe and effective contraceptive measures (which we, of course, don't have yet because conservatives and the church won't financially support research and development projects into).

ESPECIALLY in cases of rape or incest, no woman should EVER have to be faced with the difficult decision of whether to have an abortion or not. And no unwanted child should ever face the difficulty of being brought in to this world.

In case of a rape, unless we are on pill, there is no method of contraception.

The best case to avoid this situation is to shoot the rapist before the act!

So you feel that one should say to one's rapist, "Before you start, would you please put on this condom"?


How does that even make sense?

I said "100% safe and effective contraceptive measures". 100% safe and effective contraceptive measures means that no one becomes pregnant until such time as they decide to become pregnant, regardless of frequency of sexual activity or circumstances involved.

@webbew1 You mean. "Dear sir. Now that you daughter has reached the age of ten years, you must take her to a clinic for a contraceptive injection every fortnight. Failure to do so constitutes an offence under ...... etc.'
What other 100% effective contraceptive can you imagine?
On yes, of course. All men must have a mandatory vesectomy, after having a sample of their spermatozoa preserved in a government cryogenic facility. Far simpler, really.


Yes. Mandatory sterilization for both sexes until such time as they are able to prove themselves financially and psychologically stable enough to raise children. Not a popular opinion, I know. But I don't give a shit.

@webbew1 Nor, I suspect, do many others for your opinion. C'est la vie! 😁😁

@Petter Great!


What if the cconsequence of rape is castration for the male and abortion for the female? Just thinking outside of the box here.

Sorry. What do you mean?

@zesty Sorry, am I not making my thoughts clear enough?

@Spinliesel @zesty I think he perhaps meant that rapists should be castrated and raped women given a "morning after" pill.

@Petter Looks like castration doesn't help. A lot of castrated rapists keep attacking women. On the other hand, an executed rapist behaves always perfectly.

@zesty How about castration and penisectomy? 😜😝

@Petter I don't think that it will help. Lobotomy might.

@zesty OK. Any advance on Castration, Penisectomy and Lobotomy? 🤣😂😅😆

@Petter Whatever works to interrupt the genetic chain.


Rape, women's feelings, religions don't care at all about it. They only want as many kids as they can, no matter how.


That is not a question I can answer, but which moral code?

Your own.


Best stay away from the Bible Thumping South .

GEGR Level 7 Sep 4, 2019

Unfortunately rape is all over.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:397603
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.