If you believe the concept of life begins at conception how it happened isn't pertinent
Only if your morality is narrowly applied and black and white. A rape baby is a product of sin and crime and is morally tainted by it. Whether you feel that makes it okay to abort is a different moral question from aborting a consensual baby and I think it's mostly religious and moral hardliners that want a woman to carry a baby from a "rape rape" as Whoopi would say.
To give you an abstract example of this, many of the people who profited from Bernie Madoff had to give back their profits. Why? The money didn't commit any crime. It's not a crime to take profits. It's because when you look at the larger situation it's not moral to have some lucky or crafty people get a windfall at the expense of others involved in the same scam.
You may believe people who guessed Madoff was a scammer and pulled out just in time deserve that money, but most people don't.
The circumstances of conception do not change biological truth. Saying a rape baby is tainted makes as much sense as saying an albino is magical.
Now if you apply some mystical unscientific thinking or weird morality to the subject, yes you could say that a rape baby is tainted and that it's morally ok to murder someone who is the product of rape at any age, be it 2 months, 2 years, or 20 years old. But I have a feeling you would say that's unreasonable.
It's got rapist DNA. What, you think people are blank slates? We're all products of our parentage.
But I was only saying that even if to you the rape baby is innocent, in the broader picture as a result of crime and sin it's not, which is why I said you must have a narrow morality.
I take it you feel the people who made bank off Madoff should have been able to keep the money. Is that not so?
Only if your morality is narrowly applied and black and white. A rape baby is a product of sin and crime and is morally tainted by it. Whether you feel that makes it okay to abort is a different moral question from aborting a consensual baby and I think it's mostly religious and moral hardliners that want a woman to carry a baby from a "rape rape" as Whoopi would say.
To give you an abstract example of this, many of the people who profited from Bernie Madoff had to give back their profits. Why? The money didn't commit any crime. It's not a crime to take profits. It's because when you look at the larger situation it's not moral to have some lucky or crafty people get a windfall at the expense of others involved in the same scam.
You may believe people who guessed Madoff was a scammer and pulled out just in time deserve that money, but most people don't.
The circumstances of conception do not change biological truth. Saying a rape baby is tainted makes as much sense as saying an albino is magical.
Now if you apply some mystical unscientific thinking or weird morality to the subject, yes you could say that a rape baby is tainted and that it's morally ok to murder someone who is the product of rape at any age, be it 2 months, 2 years, or 20 years old. But I have a feeling you would say that's unreasonable.
You read this comment and you thought it was saying money is a baby? Come on, you're not that dumb.
Ok I removed that part since someone else has addressed your odd analogy already. Rest of my comment stands.
Now remove your "odd" analogy to magical albinos. At least my analogy was to something that actually exists.
It's got rapist DNA. What, you think people are blank slates? We're all products of our parentage.
But I was only saying that even if to you the rape baby is innocent, in the broader picture as a result of crime and sin it's not, which is why I said you must have a narrow morality.
I take it you feel the people who made bank off Madoff should have been able to keep the money. Is that not so?
Well Madoff thing is the same principle morally, so...