CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should A 10 Year Old Girl Who Was Raped Be Forced To Have That Baby?
Mike Huckabee today on CNN's "State of the Union" says he agrees with Paraguay for denying a 10 year old girl who was raped by her stepfather an abortion.
Do you think a 10 year old rape victim should be forced to give birth to a baby?
Well yes, I know the fact that if a 10 year old got raped is a terrible thing to happen, although I'm against babies getting aborted in any way it's not its fault, and I also think she doesn't have to obviouslykeep that baby for a start she's 10 years old and she also got raped over it .-. But I say babies should not get aborted anyway..
The ten year old child also did not choose to be in this situation anymore than the fetus which might become a viable baby and survive birth. Upon what basis do you value the well-being and life of the fetus/baby over that of the child? Because in forcing the child to go through with a highly dangerous pregnancy that her body has not fully developed to support you are doing precisely that.
Don't you realize that her life was already ruined by the rape, so keep ruining her life over and over again. That way the number of people who have their life ruined stays at a minimum. We all know that limiting sufereing is not important, limiting the number of people who are suffering is the goal.
Most people with an ounce of intellect understand that there is much guilt from women who have had abortions. So you have no problem with women suffering from the guilt? The woman has already suffered from a hideous rape and now you would want her to also live with the guilt of abortion?
It's amazing how you pick and choose what type of suffering is ok and which is not.
Any woman who had caring compassionate people in our media would have been educated to know the first thing to do is go to the doctors where they can prevent conception!
It truly is a waste of time statng the obvious to mindless people.
The sad part is that they could care less the truth, they know the truth and laugh at it. They don't speak of how easily it is to prevent conception by just going to the doctor after rape. These pro abortion fanatics constantly talk about educating people to birth control, etc. but when it comes to something as important as rape? THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT TO DO!
The reason being so they can use their pathetic rape excuses to keep abortions for any reason going strong.
Most people with an ounce of intellect understand that there is much guilt from women who have had abortions.
Most people with an ounce of intellect would realize that if a woman was going to feel guilt about having the abortion she can choose to not have one. Most people with an ounce of intellect would realize that only the pro-life option eliminates one of the ways to avoid guilt.
Any woman who had caring compassionate people in our media would have been educated to know the first thing to do is go to the doctors where they can prevent conception!
Because of people like you women don't feel comfortable telling anyone they got raped. People like you would make them feel like they did something wrong. The media has been trying to educate women that they need to come forward. This is an inaccurate statement.
The sad part is that they could care less the truth, they know the truth and laugh at it. They don't speak of how easily it is to prevent conception by just going to the doctor after rape. These pro abortion fanatics constantly talk about educating people to birth control, etc. but when it comes to something as important as rape? THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT TO DO!
Not true at all. In fact it is completely ridiculous since there are pro life people who think that the woman has the power to prevent the baby herself if she was raped.
The reason being so they can use their pathetic rape excuses to keep abortions for any reason going strong.
No, actually it is because you religious fucking control freaks are lying sacks of shit. You have claimed that you fuckers have no problem with abortions for rape or the life of the mother. You have said that you are willing to compromise in those rare cases. You are actually shown one of those rare cases and you still argue against abortion. There can be no compromise with people who make no compromises. You have lost all credibility and there is no reason to listen to any of your obvious proposals. What else are you lying about?
This is a 10 year old child; not a woman. She had an immoral act cast upon her and this little girl should not have been traumatized with having a baby. She also had her precious childhood taken away from her.
That is correct, it is a 10 year old girl and adults are suppose to be the intelligent ones who know that a 10 year old having an abortion is something that should never happen. You pro abortion extremists would possibly sentence her to a lifetime of guilt and shame from killing a Baby. She is too young to decide the value of that life inside her or how she will feel after ending it.
It's a trumatic act when a child is told to kill a living human being. It is not a trumatic act having the Baby and adopting it out to the millions of people on waiting lists to adopt new borns.
Where were these adults(who would tell her to have an abortion) when she needed the advice to get down to the doctor who would prevent conception and the need for an abortion.
Where is the education of what to do after a rape? Why on earth would you rather traumatize girls with an abortion?
As always, pro abortion fanatics care more for getting rid of unwnted Babies who they deem a burden on society versus the well being of a child.
That is correct, it is a 10 year old girl and adults are suppose to be the intelligent ones who know that a 10 year old having an abortion is something that should never happen. You pro abortion extremists would possibly sentence her to a lifetime of guilt and shame from killing a Baby.
There you go again, claiming to know how every women reacts to events in their lives.
She is too young to decide the value of that life inside her or how she will feel after ending it.
She is too young to be giving birth and feeling the guilt of giving up a child as well.
It's a trumatic act when a child is told to kill a living human being
It may or may not be, depends on the person. It is a traumatic act when a child has to carry and give birth to a child, however.
It is not a trumatic act having the Baby and adopting it out to the millions of people on waiting lists to adopt new borns.
It is literally traumatic, in that it causes at LEAST physical trauma, for a 10 year old girl to carry and have a baby. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
Where were these adults(who would tell her to have an abortion) when she needed the advice to get down to the doctor who would prevent conception and the need for an abortion.
If those adults were getting a 10 year old child contraceptives, you would be screaming bloody murder.
Where is the education of what to do after a rape? Why on earth would you rather traumatize girls with an abortion?
Abortion is something one can do after a rape. You do not know whether or not it would cause trauma, you are being arrogant.
As always, pro abortion fanatics care more for getting rid of unwnted Babies who they deem a burden on society versus the well being of a child.
You are utterly illogical. People who advocate for an abortion in this instance do not hold some hatred of fetus' and babies or some desire for abortions to increase. You are not thinking clearly.
What Real Logic is saying that, the girl should not abort but maybe give the child to a childcare or maybe a loving couple who wanna have kids but they can't.. He does not agree on aborting but at the same time, he agrees that the girl should not be responsible for the child
But none of that is relevant to what I said. The process of carrying and giving birth to the child at that age is potentially life ruining, especially on top of everything else.
No, actually, it is not "MORE RAPE". Argue that it is problematic all you like; I would contend an abortion should have been permitted myself. But stop referring to something that is not sexual assault as rape; it is not only inaccurate, but damaging to the your own advocacy and even offensive to survivors.
so am i to understand from your objections, that there are a subset of survivors who look down on the other victims as not having been "raped" according to their elite definition of "sexual"?
Rape:to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence
No, it wouldn't. It would be wrong, certainly, but it would not be rape. There really is not reason to use that word. The idea of misusing the word rape simply because of the emotions it evokes is the trivialization that is so problematic.
Because a statement of an opinion does not counter or refute arguments provided against you. Jace is right, and you aren't really debating; the sole point of this website.
If I adopted your (non)standard of proof, I need only argue that it does not because it does not. However, your attempt to "dispute" something by asserting that its assumption is correct is called circular reasoning, or more specifically begging the question, and it is a logical fallacy. The reason for this is that if assertion were a valid form of refutation the debate could never progress but would become stuck in a never-ending exchange of assertions (i.e. yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, etc.).
The irony of refusing to prove anything and then demanding that someone else prove something also seems to have escaped you; in so doing you have invalidated your own assertion that proof is not necessary to warrant a claim.
Also, why ever do you assume that I am married? And why to a woman?
I actually meant rape, but I have noticed that, despite definitions being provided for you, you have yet to provide any definition yourself. Why is that?
Which is a good argument against you employing the word rape outside of its context.
when you are violated, you know when its rape.
But you weren't, so how would you know?
i don't have to be an em-path to put myself into the shoes of a 10yro girl.
.
she did not ask for any of this and the sooner it can be put behind her the better.
I certainly agree with you, though seeing as how she is a 10 year old, we certainly can not know exactly what manner of a violation she would see this mandated birth as.
That is not remotely my point. What I actually said:
Forced pregnancy is not considered a form of sexual assault, either legally or in common usage. This does not make "right" or render it any less violating, but it considerably alters the nature of the violation both in technical terms and also in regards to the psychological and physical consequences.
Falsely equating distinct experiences, even when both are negative and harmful, could very well be something that survivors of those different experiences are offended by simply because it is a misrepresentation and even appropriation of their experiences. It is not about them thinking any experience was invalid or less terrible than their own, it is about false conflation being potentially disempowering and harmful to some survivors.
Please actually take the time to read what I am writing, instead of making incorrect assumptions about my stance.
Not once have I stated that either experience is not physically and psychological traumatic.
Not once have I stated that either experience is something we should subject someone to.
Not once have I stated that either experience is worse than the other.
What I did state is that the experiences are differently traumatic and that conflating them is both inaccurate and problematic. I have repeatedly explained why this is, and why that conflation might actually be harmful to survivors yet you have refused to address both the point and the potential harm your language could cause. I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for you, but if you continue to misrepresent my views and ignore your own culpability on the issue then I am done with this exchange.
1. an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2. unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent - compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3. an outrageous violation
One of these explicitly mentions sex, and both despoiling and violation are common euphemisms for sexual assault. Not one of them mentions "POWER" or even remotely references or implies the government. The closest you get is through the last, and thus least common, definition and even then that is only with considerable inference and assumption. Dictionary aside, if one were speaking to someone and stated "she was raped" the most common assumption would not be that the government forced her to carry her pregnancy to term.
Not only is your definition incongruous with the dictionary, common understanding, and legal parlance but I have explained why the conflation it creates can actually be harmful to some survivors and your cause. This appears to be a harm you are either unwilling or incapable of addressing, though you are perfectly comfortable villainizing others to reinforce your sense of moral superiority.
Anticipate no further reply from me; I see no reason for me to continue this exchange.
So you use the least common definition, one that actually helps demonstrate the point Jace and I have made about the dilution of the original definitions of the word.
Alright, I know I said I was not going to continue this one but I am bored so why not?
Citing the third most common definition does not give it precedence over the two more common definitions which precede it, one of which explicitly endorses the definition I have advanced. In order to prioritize a less common definition there must be a clear reason for doing so. Not only have you not presented such a reason, I have established why it ought not be the definition in this context due to the harm it can cause to survivors (a point you continue to avoid with such regularity that it is effectively conceded).
If potentially harming survivors of sexual assault is not reason enough to avoid using three, let me add this: arguing that definition in this context is simply absurd because almost anything could qualify - e.g. tax breaks for churches are an outrageous violation of church and state... must be rape. Do you seriously think it wise to use a definition that places that comparable to sexual assault or forced pregnancy? I doubt it.
at times like these you should slip in an insult and see if it was found in the next reply. tells you everything.
unless you want people to only half-read your argument, you should write on a level of english they are more familiar with. you're advanced vocabulary intended to convey as much meaning as possible is being used to the opposite effect.
Your point regarding my language use is well taken, though not something I was unaware of. However, translating my natural speech into a more common vernacular has not usually been worth the effort. I also find that a more advanced vocabulary is more useful, if not necessary, for exploring issues with any substantive depth. That is not to say that interesting exchanges cannot be had with more basic vocabulary, and if someone seems genuinely interested in understanding my views I have always been willing to clarify using different terminology. For all others, I have found that using the language which comes most naturally to me is a rather good filter for identifying whom I should take seriously (as effective, say, as insulting someone to see if they were really reading).
i can see how it could be useful as a filter, but it makes less sense when you reply to an argument in a language style which they are unlikely to understand. if someone replies to you, very well, you're in your own domain. the vice versa is deliberately problematic. as for clarifying, if someone can not get the gist of what it is you are saying, they will hardly ask for a follow up without prior attachment
When I reply to someone else I generally do it for two different reasons. My primary interest is in finding a good debate or discussion and I generally know from whom I can expect that and have not found my language to be a barrier with them. Otherwise, I sometimes reply to others' posts to abate my boredom more than anything.
I have actually had quite a few people ask me to clarify my meaning, sometimes expressly on account of my language. We have gone on to have productive, interesting exchanges as well. I know not everyone will, but enough do that I am not left with no one engaging me.
Do I miss out on a few conversations because I do not make the effort to change my language? Probably, but I do not feel the loss really merits the effort for me personally.
This is the intellect of Liberals and Democrats. The values of a human life is based on it's circumstances. In the Democrat's world, a human life is only valuable and deserving the right to life, when it's life does not get in the way of another's feelings.
You see, in the Democrat's world, a human life does not deserve protecting if it has a criminal for a father. The Baby's life life has no value if the mother does not want to carry it to term and have someone else adopt the child.
The compassion of Democrats is beyond inhuman. They play God and will decide if you are deserving of a future. They say some depression of the mother is more important than the Baby's life! Sick twisted thinking!
The Left loves bringing up these extreme rare cases of rape pregnancy. They also love never talking about how the raped woman can go down to the hospital and prevent any chance of conception.
But don't let that stop their pro abortion rhetoric. They do it to try to excuse the vast vast millions of aborted Babies purely for birth control reasons. Hardly ever life of mother or rape or incest pregnancy.
life has always been qualified. Actuaries regularly quantify the value of life. The denial of insurance due to a pre-existing condition is based on this idea.
It is only thanks to obamacare that a person can get insurance without being considered less for having a pre-existing position.
The Democrat party could have easily handled the pre-existing illness issue without this hideous controlling mandate of Obamacare. Then the American people might have supported it but as we all know Obamacare was not supported by the American people(even in Ted kennedy's home state they spoke out against it).
But of course our extremist Liberal president spit in the people's face and forced it through without one GOP vote.
I wll never thank our liar and chief for bankrupting this nation and forcing a hideous healthcare plan down the throats of the middle class who can in no way afford it. Sure, as always it's great for those who do not PAY! As always the Democrat party is the socialist party.
The Democrat party could have easily handled the pre-existing illness issue without this hideous controlling mandate of Obamacare.
How, specifically?
Then the American people might have supported it but as we all know Obamacare was not supported by the American people(even in Ted kennedy's home state they spoke out against it).
When polled on the specifics within the ACA, Americans approve of it. When polled on "ObamaCare", they don't. Doesn't mean much>
But of course our extremist Liberal president spit in the people's face and forced it through without one GOP vote.
Of course he did. He tried to negotiate with the Republicans in good faith, and they spit on that good faith by acting petulant and caring more about politics than about contributing. They said so themselves.
I wll never thank our liar and chief for bankrupting this nation
He didn't.
and forcing a hideous healthcare plan down the throats of the middle class who can in no way afford it
Thus far, we in the middle class have been affording it. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the ACA either, but there's no need to be hyperbolic about it.
Sure, as always it's great for those who do not PAY! As always the Democrat party is the socialist party.
Actually, it is worse than it was before for those who did not pay. Now there is a mandate that said people must get health insurance, while before they simply let the government pay for their emergency care. You should educate yourself on a topic before talking about it.
This is the intellect of Liberals and Democrats. The values of a human life is based on it's circumstances. In the Democrat's world, a human life is only valuable and deserving the right to life, when it's life does not get in the way of another's feelings.
As you have been told many times, people who support this generally do not consider the fetus a living human. Why do you continue to lie about the people you disagree with?
You see, in the Democrat's world, a human life does not deserve protecting if it has a criminal for a father. The Baby's life life has no value if the mother does not want to carry it to term and have someone else adopt the child.
And another lie.
The compassion of Democrats is beyond inhuman. They play God and will decide if you are deserving of a future. They say some depression of the mother is more important than the Baby's life! Sick twisted thinking!
And another.
They also love never talking about how the raped woman can go down to the hospital and prevent any chance of conception.
How could a 10 year old girl do that, exactly?
But don't let that stop their pro abortion rhetoric. They do it to try to excuse the vast vast millions of aborted Babies purely for birth control reasons. Hardly ever life of mother or rape or incest pregnancy.
Indeed, which is why we need to make very real strives to stop said abortions in a very real, practical way. This is why we need vastly improved sexual education and improved access to birth control, as those are the only legitimate means that have been proven to decrease things such as teen pregnancy or unwanted pregnancies. What we can not do is scream and cry, push for abstinence only sex education, then outlaw abortion and push these cases into the back ally. That simply does not work.
Most people with an ounce of intellect understand that there is much guilt from women who have had abortions. So you have no problem with women suffering from the guilt? The woman has already suffered from a hideous rape and now you would want her to also live with the guilt of abortion?
It's amazing how you pick and choose what type of suffering is ok and which is not.
Any woman who had caring compassionate people in our media would have been educated to know the first thing to do is go to the doctors where they can prevent conception!
It truly is a waste of time statng the obvious to mindless people.
The sad part is that they could care less the truth, they know the truth and laugh at it. They don't speak of how easily it is to prevent conception by just going to the doctor after rape. These pro abortion fanatics constantly talk about educating people to birth control, etc. but when it comes to something as important as rape? THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT TO DO!
The reason being so they can use their pathetic rape excuses to keep abortions for any reason going strong.
Most people with an ounce of intellect understand that there is much guilt from women who have had abortions.
Most people with an ounce of intellect would understand that women have vastly different reactions to that, and to claim to know the intimate details of all women's lives is ridiculous.
So you have no problem with women suffering from the guilt? The woman has already suffered from a hideous rape and now you would want her to also live with the guilt of abortion?
You are presuming to know the woman and her response to abortion. That is extremely arrogant, and who are you to determine their life choices? I thought you believed in small government.
Any woman who had caring compassionate people in our media would have been educated to know the first thing to do is go to the doctors where they can prevent conception!
She was 10 years old an in a place where comprehensive sex education was not available.
It truly is a waste of time statng the obvious to mindless people.
Which is why I wonder why I respond to you at all.
The sad part is that they could care less the truth, they know the truth and laugh at it.
You have avoided the truth in your posts.
They don't speak of how easily it is to prevent conception by just going to the doctor after rape.
Again, she was TEN YEARS OLD, and did not have access to comprehensive sex ed. You did not think this through.
These pro abortion fanatics constantly talk about educating people to birth control, etc. but when it comes to something as important as rape? THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT TO DO!
Based on what evidence?
The reason being so they can use their pathetic rape excuses to keep abortions for any reason going strong.
I know this is impossible for you to understand, but people with different opinions are not evil and malicious.
There are two options: (1) force the child to carry the fetus to term at great risk to the child and no certainty of survival for the baby; or (2) abort the fetus and forfeit its chance at life but prevent the child from being exposed to the risk of the pregnancy. There is no option were we are not forced to value one over the other.
Neither the child nor the fetus is responsible for this situation, so we cannot assign preferential value on the basis of fault or culpability. What is left, then, but to select for that option which is most likely to cause the least aggregate cost or harm?
Option one jeopardizes the life of the child without necessarily securing the life of the fetus which must survive both the pregnancy and its birth. Option two definitively removes the risk posed to the child but forfeits the chance at life that the fetus may have. The only option which affords us any certainty of at least helping one of the two is the second.
The first option presents us with both the greatest possible gain and greatest possible loss, but the most probable result is the loss of one or both lives given the innate risks of a pregnancy involving someone who is only ten years old. The second option affords us the greatest possible likelihood of helping at least one of the two with the least risk of losing both, rendering it the best possible option that can be made.
Additional Argumentation
The designation of life is an arbitrary and subjective process upon which there is not broad agreement, and there is particular disagreement over where that designation should be made in regards to fetuses. While the status of the fetus is debatable, the status of the ten year old child is not. When forced to prioritize one entity over the other, it seems most prudent to value the entity whose status as a human being is broadly accepted rather than the entity whose status is contested.
I actually doubt that most anti-abortionists would make that argument. I think they would readily agree that fewer people see the fetus as a living human than see the child as a living human, and that would be what they object to.
I also would not say that they are any less correct than anyone else in terms of where they designate the start of life, since that designation is ultimately an arbitrary and subjective one. I think it is the less useful classification, but that is because I understand the designation of life in terms of its practical utility (I could elaborate, but why bother since we effectively agree on this).
Further, I do no think their view necessarily makes them "sick" or "depraved". They are not opposed to abortion because they inherently want to hurt women, or because none of them care about the pain and suffering of the ten year old girl... but rather because they also care about what they consider to be another living being who is going to be killed. They consider the certain death of one person to be worse than the pain and possible death of another person. I disagree with how they evaluate the risks and costs and ascription of life to the fetus, but I do not think it makes them deranged monsters who are trying to destroy women and young girls.
you have not been talking to the same ppl I'VE been talking to.
.
and i would also note that several candidates running for PRESIDENT in 2016 (all republicans, btw).... have repeatedly stated their FIRM postilion that there be NO EXCEPTIONS... not for rape and not for the life of the mother.
.
you may "actually doubt"... but this is where they stand.
you have not been talking to the same ppl I'VE been talking to.
I have been talking with the exact same people you have been talking with. The difference is that I am actually trying to understand what they are saying and where they are coming from.
[presidential candidates] & you may "actually doubt"... but this is where they stand.
I never once stated that I think there are people who are opposed to abortion. Again, this would be you misrepresenting my views because you cannot be bothered to actually read what I write and think critically about it.
What I did state is that these people would generally not think that the status of the fetus is generally agreed upon, which was your original claim.
i would donate to a "gofundme" website to bring this girl here to America where she can be treated for her condition in a safe and professional manner.
This is assuming that parental consent could be secured to transport her across national borders and that she has or can secure the necessary travel permits and visas to make the trip in time. But if this is something you believe in, maybe you should look into that and start the "gofundme" campaign yourself. At the very least the funds could go to support her recovery.
The world of girl child,promising that gloomy and hopeful . The hand that rocks the candle and the mother of tomorrow...if she raped we have to support her for abortion..she is just 10 year old she don't have enough knowledge to survive . and she is just child friends ,we help her in everything..and we don't take her down ....and give highest punishment that any other think once while rap.
Although I don't think abortion is something that should become as common as removing a tooth, I'd have to say that in this case it's a definite because a young girl was raped. The abortion should be done with the upmost care though, because of the age of the girl. We should look to see if having the abortion will damage her in any way, and then do what is necessary to prevent any further harm to this innocent child.
For the most part, yes. Except in the rare cases where the two people involved are kids. I think the youngest parents ever were around the age of 10. In this case, I wouldn't consider it rape. Is it wrong? Possibly. But was anyone raped, no.
Yes it's 18 here, but it isn't always rape. If a 16 year old has sex with another 16 year that isn't necessarily rape. Could rape have taken place? Sure ...but not everyone sexual interaction in highsschool is rape. Now, this case in question is always rape. I do agree with that.