• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Giving birth is worst then rape

HereticSin

New Member
Yeh, this is just ignorant.
Get raped, then tell me whether you think being born traumatized you more, okay?

I've been raped.
 

trokolisz

Member
Yeh, this is just ignorant.
Get raped, then tell me whether you think being born traumatized you more, okay?

I've been raped.
I'm really sorry for you,
but I still stand by my statement, if someone who won't remember, for example high or incredibly drunk, is raped then that is a disgusting crime too,
it doesn't matter.
Also being born lets you experience all those horrible things, the chance that someone might get raped is a direct consequence of birth.
If someone is born, i can guarantee that they will experience some kind of pain all their life, but i can't guarantee the same for pleasure.
 

We are Borg

Administrator
Staff member
Rape is not a direct consequence of birth, rape is a consequence of persons that are one of the disgusting persons on this world.
 

trokolisz

Member
Rape is not a direct consequence of birth, rape is a consequence of persons that are one of the disgusting persons on this world.
rape is not, but the chance of being raped is.

Also it is a great example that you can't guarantee that no unexpected terrible things will happen to a child during their life.
 

Led Zeppelin

Active Member
I know the title is a bit clickbaity, but stay with me and i will explain what i mean
1, First lets consider some reason why rape is inmoral:
  • it is non consensual
  • it is painful
  • it is a terrible experience which might hunt the victim for the rest of their life
2, applying the same to giving birth:
it is entirely without the consent of the child (as it is nonexistent)
being born is the most stressful experience in the lifetime of a human (even if the "victim" forgets about it, i think it is still worth mentioning)
And at last my main point:
If someone raped suffers any physical or mental damage as the result of the rape, it is obviously the fault of the rappist, so applying the same to the parents any and all negative consequence of being alive is directly the result of their selfish act of reproducing.
Their might be an argument that what if someone life is good? I think asking if what if someone enjoyed the act of sex, while being rapped is irrelevant, and also not a question many would consider moral to entertain.

As conclusion, i don't think all parent are committing a serious crime, with no way to be forgiven. I think if the parents bring up their child, and then help them become independent, then it is a just "compensation". But if any parent ever abandon their child, and as such don't repent for their action, I find them more inmoral than rappist.

(just a footnote: i don't hate my parents, in fact i do love them, but i still think that not giving birth is better then doing so, and if i could i would had chose to never exist in the first place)
This is a perfect example of how broken you can become by being an Atheist.
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
Ok, so is your reply an example of how close-minded bigotry walks hand in hand with Christianity?

Or are you perhaps not representative of everyone in a group you say you belong to?
 

trokolisz

Member
This is a perfect example of how broken you can become by being an Atheist.
Ty for adressing my points, and enlightening me.

Also as you know nothing about me, this "twisted" logic might just be a resault of a mental illnes i have born with. Simply saying that you think my logic is broken, and it is coused by atheism simply just wont cut it. (just to clarify, i don't have any mental illnes, it is just an example oh how you can't draw concluions, by that little information)


If i brought up a conservativ christian who beat their wife to death, and say: This is a perfect example of how broken you can become following the bible and the word of God

Also the reason why i originaly posted that, was because i wasnt entirely sure about myself, and i was happy to debate it, maybe others can find a flaw in my logic that i missed
 
Last edited:

trokolisz

Member
after thinking about it, i might have misunderstood your point, if by :" This is a perfect example of how broken you can become by being an Atheist. "
you mean an Atheist will be capable of entertaining less confortable ideas, like not having a guardian angel that will make everything good in the end.
In this case I totaly agree with you, but i don't see it as being "broken", but as a good thing.
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
I'd make it simpler. The statements in the OP have got fuck all to do with beliefs in divine entities. If Led Zeppelin wants to contend otherwise, he's going to need to bring a little more substance than what appears to be a bigoted assertion.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it was comparing the physical/emotional pain of giving birth with that of rape. On reading the first posts I realised it was comparing the morality of giving birth with that of rape, although the topic appears to be broader, judging by the discussion's direction.

Firstly, I disagree with the topic title.

Bearing in mind that there are moral arguments in favour of the taking of life, there are none for rape. This means that rape is worse than the taking of life.

One only then has to ask if there are moral arguments for the creation of life - if so, then here also rape is worse than the creation of life.

Clearly, procreation is one of the key factors in evolution - indeed, evolution could not occur without it. Life itself could not continue to exist without it. This is a strong argument in favour of creating life. Ergo, rape is morally worse than the creation of life.

Regarding the morality of giving birth, it should be noted that, prior to the 20th century in Ireland, particularly due to famines, abortion was considered a lesser evil/sin than giving birth, only for the child to die from starvation. Only when food-security improved sufficiently in the last century did the Church's position on abortion change to its current state.

Clearly, this is a moving target depending on circumstances.

In the case of a couple who are willing, and able, to bring a child into the world through a planned pregnancy, it would be moral. For those who have a child without such planning, it could be argued that it's immoral - particularly if it's just through the proverbial one-night stand.

I also disagree with the basic premise that pressing the proverbial "big red button" to destroy everything is "better" than not doing so.

One can only argue that never having existed is a better state than existing, given that the latter involves experiencing some level of suffering during one's existence. One has to balance that against the pleasure one also experiences during one's existence.

At some point, where one's suffering holds sway, one might feel like "ending it all" for oneself but to do so for everyone I would consider morally wrong.

Equally, I find the discussion about a "perfect being" pointless. Such a being, by definition, can't be any more or any less perfect. If "God" - as a place-holder for "perfect being", whether mythic (religiously-based) or not - exists, then It can't countenance anything less than perfection, ergo, It can't create anything less than perfect. Indeed, being absolutely perfect, it can't want for anything, thus It won't create us - or anything else - "for it's own glory, etc".

Regarding the comments about rape only being such if remembered, I disagree with this. (And my deepest sympathies to HereticSin for your experience.)

Just because you don't remember committing a crime (due to being high on drugs/alcohol) does not mean that a crime hasn't been committed. Equally, not remembering being raped does not make it any less a crime, as a recent case in America proved.

One may argue against moral responsibility, as Weller does but not that a crime has not been committed, as defined by the law.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Last edited:
Top