Rape victims require additional punishment

Should a rape victim who takes the morning-after pill be punished for murder?

In an illustrative and disturbing example of how religious belief can lead to immorality, some Christians say yes.

Craig S and Tony J believe that rape victims who conceive must be forced through 9 months of pregnancy and forced to give birth to their attacker's child.

The reasons for such an immoral position: Chris and Tony believe in the existence of souls.

According to most Christians, at the moment conception takes place, god inserts the zygote with a unique soul. And it is the soul that has the real value.

As a result, preventing the fertilised egg from implanting in the wall of uterus, which emergency contraception sometimes does, is the moral equivalent of killing a young child, or a human of any age for that matter.

Instead of basing our moral reasoning on the facts, for example the pain and suffering caused by forcing a rape victim to give birth, the completely unfounded belief in souls forces Christians to place great value on a zygote.

The "interests" of a couple of cells, impossible to see with the human eye, devoid of the ability to think, dream, suffer or experience happiness wins out over a rape victim.

And should said victim try to prevent the implantation? Chris:
I (and some of the other commentators) actually think a fetus is an actual person, and killing it is an actual murder... If 15+ years is what you would get for killing a 1 day old baby (I'm not sure it is), then yes - 15+ years would be appropriate for perpetrating an abortion.

18 comments:

CraigS said...

Would you support legislation that restricted abortion to rape victims?

Australian Atheist said...

What do you have in mind?

OzAtheist said...

abortion should be free and easily accessible to all that need it.

Hey CraigS, Tony and any other MALE idiot that thinks contraception and abortion are wrong. Come round here I'll rape you with a knife to your throat and a large implement where it doesn't belong, Then I'll make your body swell, gain weight, throw up, then try and excrete a watermelon from a small orifice. Then you'll have to look after this for the rest of your life, pay over $250,000 just to educate it, possibly miss out on finishing your education, end up a burden on the welfare system. Just to name a few things, never mind the horror of being raped in the first place.

It's not about paying them a few measly dollars, it's about dignity and being able to be in charge of your own body and life (at least to some extent).

signed
Oz Atheist
A male, pro-abortionist and proud of it!

Apologies to Australian Atheist for the tone in this comment but people like Craig S and Tony really 'get my goat'.

CraigS said...

What do you have in mind?

Exactly what I said!

Come round here I'll rape you with a knife to your throat and a large implement where it doesn't belong

Ok, will do. Where do you live? I'm surprised someone as tough as you posts under an alias...

OzAtheist said...

OK Craig, you caught me out, I'm not really a tough guy. Anyway, I wouldn't actually do you, or anyone else, harm as I don't think it's right. I also wouldn't wish my scenario on anyone.

I was just trying to get your attention and make a point.

I obviously got your attention, but I don't think you got my point.

I was trying to get you to imagine a horrible violent attack on yourself and the consequences of that attack. Then try and empathize with what some women go through.

Do you think you could do that?

I'll take back my personal attack on you, if you'd like. Instead you will have to imagine a scenario where a complete stranger just attacks you for no reason, as frequently happens to rape victims.

Would you still prefer to go through 9 months of physical and emotional agony just because you think a fetus should not be aborted? Do you think $10,000 would be enough compensation?

---------------------------------
In answer to your original question.
Would you support legislation that restricted abortion to rape victims?

I would NOT support any legislation that tried to restrict abortion in ANY way.

To clarify, I think there is a case for some limits on abortions, such as 'late term' abortions, but for the sake of this argument, I'm against restrictions on abortions.

CraigS said...

Would you still prefer to go through 9 months of physical and emotional agony just because you think a fetus should not be aborted?

A rape is a dreadful thing. But why punish the baby?

But this is a red herring - you've already said that you think abortion should be available regardless of the circumstances of conception. And statistically, rape related abortion is less than 1% of abortions.

I would support a bill that restricted abortion to rape victims - because it would eliminate 99% of abortions!

Buffy said...

Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. Sadly those who fight hardest to make abortion illegal also fight hardest to eradicate what would make it rare--safe, affordable and easy to obtain birth control.

Anybody who wishes to outlaw abortion is free to come take the zygote/embryo from the woman who is unwilling or unable to carry it and do so themselves. I have a feeling that anti-choicers would change their minds post haste if that were an option.

Not every woman is physically capable of carrying a baby to term, or financially able to deal with pregnancy and raising a child. Sadly the "pro-life" faction doesn't take this into account.

Natalia said...

I'm religious, and I think abortion should be safe and legal.

"Pro-life" is a completely misleading term. Most pro-lifers I know just want to punish "the evil sluts."

It's part of the reason why I never go to church anymore.

Xtina! said...

Craig:

I would support a bill that restricted abortion to rape victims - because it would eliminate 99% of abortions!

Are you assuming that the only time abortion happens is when it's legal?

marty said...

A rape is a dreadful thing. But why punish the baby?

It. Isn't. A. Baby.

It's a zygote.

My nail parings have more cells.

Ben said...

Where would you like to draw the line then Aus Atheist? Some time before the child can see, or hold its head up or walk or speak?

I don't see why you consider it 'burdening' when a woman funds the raising of her own child. Had a child be born when the father didn't want to be a father and was in favour of the aborition he'd still be responsible for that child's funding. Where's the difference? Paying to raise your offspring is the burden placed on us by mother nature - get used to it.

The Ridger, FCD said...

If souls are implanted the second a sperm enters an ovum, then thousands of souls die every day in spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages, if you prefer that term). It's thought that half, if not more, of fertilized eggs never implant.

But those souls manage somehow under this god-ordained way of doing things.

SallyO said...

I think you're probably punishing the baby more by letting it be born. We all like to think that we were conceived in love. I'm not sure I'd want to go through life knowing that my father was a violent and vicious man and that my mother would probably have aborted me if she'd been allowed to.

Anonymous said...

marty: rape victims dont get abortions to punish fetuses. they do it to restore what was forcefully ripped from them, their bodily autonomy. fetuses are parasites and parasites are aggressors by their very nature. their is no inalienable right to live inside someone else'e body without that persons permission. a fetus cant live off my body anymore than i can live off of yours without you consenting to it. to deny choice to a rape victim is to deny a human right, the right to defend against bodily violatin. a forced pregnancy is indeed a sexual violation that transcends even the vileness of rape. it is magnifying the victimization of a woman who has already been victimized. pregnancy and childbirth are not experiences that can be humanely imposed upon a person. if a woman cant own her own body and be able to decide how and for what purposes it is used, she can own nothing and is a slave.

Reginald said...

The anti-abortion argument is based on faulty logic. If the 'soul' is the important thing and the flesh merely the vessel, and the soul is an indestructible entity, then killing off a couple of cells and releasing the soul to return to the god that implanted it is a good deed, for then it will luxuriate for eternity in the presence of divinity. Where's the sin in that?

metal-fan-666 said...

"their is no inalienable right to live inside someone else's body without that persons permission."

Finally, someone who gets the point.

To quote fear factory:

There is no love

I am a duplication
Innocently
I was conceived
So violently

There was no love
There was no love for me
There was only hatred

I am rape
I am hate
I am rape
I am hate

Every day I feel anonymous hate
Forever in the shadow of disgrace

I am rape
I am hate
I am rape
I am hate

I am so
Filled with pain
A bruised and darknened soul
Spare me from the
Life that's full of misery

I don't want to live that way
I don't want to live that way

There is no love

Every day I feel anonymous hate
Forever in the shadow of disgrace

I am rape
I am hate
I am rape
I am hate

I am so
Filled with pain
A bruised and darknened soul
Spare me from the
Life that's full of misery

I am so
Filled with pain
A bruised and darknened soul
Spare me from the
Life that's full of misery

I don't want to live that way
I don't want to live that way

I am so
Filled with pain
A bruised and darknened soul
Spare me from the
Life that's full of misery

Spare me from the
Life that's full of pain

Spare me from the
Life that's full of pain

I don't want to live that way
I don't want to live that way.




To let the zygote form into a human being would truly be 'punishing the baby'.

I am not surprised this a comfortable position for catholics to occupy though - I know every time I see a newborn baby I can't help but feel joy knowing that the filthy sin riddled bag of meat is going to suffer eternal torture unless it embraces the holy spirit as its savior.

Thank you god, thanks for all those options.

Neridiah said...

"According to most Christians, at the moment conception takes place, god inserts the zygote with a unique soul"

Does that mean that the soul itself splits into two in the case of monozygotic twinning? What are the implications of this for Calvinist-style predestination? Or does God wait to see how many times the blastocyst will split before delegating souls to the womb creature? Does that mean we have 5 days in which we can kill zygotes with impunity? Or does God take as many souls from the waiting-list as were destined for a particular zygote and kill them if their zygote is killed?

So many theological questions...

Jonathan Baker said...

It is incorrect to say (at least in traditional Christian theology) that God "inserts a soul" and that this "has the real value." This notion of body + soul as two totally separate substances is called dualism (Plato and Descartes are famous dualists, for example).

In traditional Christian thought, the soul is (in Aristotelian terms) the form of the body, or if this makes it clearer: the life of the body. It is not a separate thing.

Because of the intellectual capacity of human life (ie of the human soul), we can say that human individuals (as distinct from animals, plants and minerals etc...) are persons, and therefore have an intrinsic dignity. It is this dignity of personhood that confers on every human their rights, of which the most fundamental is their right to life.

Abortion is not tenable even in rape, because, despite the outrageous crime committed against a (female) person, it is no solution to commit another crime to another (as yet unborn) person.

Neridiah's excellent question is not easy to answer, I will admit, mainly because our scientific knowledge is not yet precise enough. I maintain that it is theoretically possible that one person could divide into two persons at some point. What is clear, in my opinion, is that abortion would at no time be morally acceptable.