yes but quality of life?... we don't know exactly what genes get passed on would you really want the possibility of this child being a future rapest amoungst people? its one of those kill one to save many... not saying its right.. i just don't feel that a rape baby should be spared... due to the possibility that rape could be passed on as a gene.. there is no proof or disproof of this yet. to my knowledge

Furthermore, even though I wasn't originally talking about rape, if a girl gets raped then she should have to suffer through the pregnancy? That's harsh.

I know that.

Why wouldn't you put a baby that's the result of rape up for adoption when you would put any other baby you could not keep up for adoption? Sorry, I know I keep going over that, but hell, it happens when a debate goes on for 20 pages.

Edit: I couldn't look at your last post on that since I needed to post this from the previous page to make two quotes. I really don't think rape is a gene. Maybe the chances for a chemical imbalance in the brain that may cause sexual urges to result in a rape, but you can't just say that a baby of a rapist may become a rapist. Anyone can become a rapist.

And as for wondering if a raped woman should have to suffer through pregnancy: I don't think any woman should have to suffer through pregnancy. That giving birth shit looks painful. But that's how life works. It's not her fault she's pregnant, and she is scarred for life anyway, but it still comes down to if you believe all life deserves a natural chance (however low that may be) or if it is up to the woman to gauge the value of her baby's life, and I don't really mean that in a negative way, even though I could have phrased it differently.

If a baby is formed as a result of rape, should he or she have to be killed? That's harsher.

Yeah it isn't the babies fault that it's mother was raped.

It is still not proven about genes until it is those are my views I seen people with with diseases that inherited them who says rape is not a disease we just don't know

No it's not "harsher". The woman didn't ask to get raped. Women shouldn't have to go through something as difficult as pregnancy unless they WANT to. That's hell for them. Then they have the baby and they see the father in the baby. So you want to torture the mother more? Babies matter but the mother doesn't?
And I didn't say a baby HAS to be killed. See, that's a pro-lifer making a pro-choicer seem like a pro-death, er, er. I see what you're doing there, sunshine.

And computerdude, it's not the woman's fault she got raped either.
By the way, the baby will suffer eventually in its life, more than likely. What happens when the kid asks "who's my daddy?" And if the mother finds some other guy to act as the father, can the mother live dishonestly like that?


And now, some comedy while still fueling conversation:

You made some of the best points of the thread in this post, specifically this "Women shouldn't have to go through something as difficult as pregnancy unless the WANT to."

How could rape possibly result in its own disease? I would understand if the raper had a disease already, such as AIDS, or something else, but rape does not cause its own specific disease. There's nothing to prove. If it did, that would mean all children are at risk for having a disease at birth, since rape (how sad it is) is pretty much the same mechanics as consensual sex (without the actual consent, of course).

Rape is not a disease.

I guess I don't support abortion because I'm a Christian.


“There is neither born nor unborn child, we are all one in Christ Jesus."

"They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:17-18).

"They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed" (Psalm 106:35, 37-38).