Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 03/09/2006 11:44:59 AM PST by cpforlife.org
Rape and Incest… Is Abortion Ever Okay?
Many advocates for life are challenged with myths and tough questions. Is abortion the answer in some cases? No! All life has value and therefore should be respected and protected. Much of the truth about abortion receives little attention in public discourse, for it exposes what we, as a nation would rather not see. Following are myths and questions frequently raised by abortion proponents, and facts about the "hard cases" in the abortion debate.
ACCEPTING ABORTION FOR HARD CASES SUCH AS RAPE AND INCEST IS ONLY SENSIBLE. DOESN'T ABORTION NEED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THESE DIFFICULT SITUATIONS? Pro-lifers must emphasize that no matter the circumstances of conception; there should never be embarrassment about bringing a child into the world. The value of a person is not determined by the circumstances of his or her conception. Rape and incest victims need support and compassion, not a "quick-fix solution" like abortion. Abortion only adds to the trauma and injustice already inflicted upon the mother.
ABORTION IS USED MAINLY AS A LAST RESORT, MOSTLY FOR PREGNANCIES THAT RESULT FROM RAPE OR INCEST. In a study conducted by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, entitled “Why Women Have Abortions,” women were asked to give specific reasons why they had an abortion. The top three answers were: 1. Unready for responsibility 2. Can't afford baby now 3. Concern about how having a baby would change her life. The three reasons, which came in last place and were tied at 1 percent included: 1. Was a victim of rape or incest 2. Husband or partner wanted the abortion 3. Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant. Studies and statistics consistently show that pregnancies due to rape and incest are rare. According to Guttmacher that 1% due to rape and incest is 14,000 babies per year. Therefore, abortion is not mainly used as a last resort.
ABORTION MUST BE ALLOWED IN ORDER TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. "There are rare instances where a choice has to be made to save the mother's life over a child's," according to Kathleen M. Raviele, M.D. Dr. Raviele specializes in adult and adolescent gynecology and practices in Tucker, Georgia. Physicians now have the ability to treat the mother and child separately as the two individuals they are. Considering today's medical technology, it is extremely rare that an unborn baby's life must be sacrificed to save the mother' life. A very important distinction must be made between abortion, and removing an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy or inducing early delivery. While the former intends to destroy a life the latter seeks to preserve it.
WHAT ABOUT FETAL DEFECTS? WHY WOULD PRO-LIFERS PUNISH MOTHERS BY FORCING THEM TO HAVE BABIES WITH DISABILITIES? The value of human life cannot be measured by one's abilities or lack thereof. As human beings, we have unalienable rights despite any physical, mental or emotional disabilities we may have. Denying another's humanity on the basis of some concept of productivity or "perfection" is a very dangerous proposition. The door is then open to other forms of "mercy killing."
IF SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WOMEN WILL BE DRIVEN TO DANGEROUS BACK-ALLEY ABORTIONS, RESULTING IN NEEDLESS INJURY AND DEATH. It should be remembered that a death occurs every time an abortion is performed - the death of an unborn child. It should also be emphasized that abortion is a surgical procedure, and though legal, it puts many women at serious physical, mental and emotional risk. Increasing attention is being focused on the fact that many women suffer post-abortion complications. While abortion proponents allege that thousands of women died from abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, such numbers were actually made up by individuals and groups pushing for abortion's legalization. The truth is that no one knows exactly how many women died from illegal abortions for the simple reason that illegal abortions were not reported. What we do know is that women - and their children - are suffering and dying now from legal abortion.
WHAT IF STATES PASS ABORTION-RESTRICTIVE LAWS THAT ALLOW FOR RAPE EXCEPTIONS? 1. Laws permitting abortion for pregnancy resulting from rape illustrate well the legal dictum "hard cases make bad law." Exceptions seem to make the rule.
2. Laws allowing abortion for impregnating rapes are unenforceable and easily abused.
3. Legislation allowing this exception has historically led to abortion on demand. Former President Reagan has attested to widespread abuse of the rape exception in his home state of California while he was governor. That exception became a legal loophole leading to abortion on demand due to overly broad interpretations of the law. Likewise, in England, the 1967 Abortion Act was passed to allow abortion for 'exceptional' cases. The outcome has been abortion on demand.
It is noteworthy that an entire U.S. Supreme Court case was predicated on the lie of a gang rape. That case, the now notorious Roe v Wade, brought us abortion on demand in this country.
SHOULDN'T ABORTION AT LEAST BE AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF RAPE AND INCEST? The last thing a woman who has been through the trauma of rape needs is the added trauma of an abortion. Rather than mitigating the original shock of the attack, abortion compounds it. Clinical studies demonstrate this. A study done at the University of British Columbia's Department of Psychiatry, as reported in the March 3, 1978, issue of Psychiatric News, a publication of the American Psychiatric Association, showed that abortion often exacerbates a woman's psychological stress. That study concluded in part: "Whatever may be the case at the conscious level, at a much deeper level abortion is regarded by many women as infanticide." Abortion advocates have used the rape and incest exceptions as a smokescreen - first to legalize, then to promote abortion on demand.
STILL, CAN'T ABORTION BE THE TRULY COMPASSIONATE RESPONSE TO RAPE? A cornerstone of the 'pro-choice' movement is that abortion is the treatment of choice for rape. Yet pregnancy rarely results from rape; the vast majority of abortions (over 99% according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute statistics-14,000 per year in the U.S.) are for far more convenient reasons than rape or incest. Vicki Seitzer in Volume 32 of the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association stated: "Perhaps more of a gross exaggeration than a myth is the mistaken and unfortunate belief that pregnancy is a frequent complication of sexual assault. This is emphatically not the case, and there are several medically sound reasons for it. Honesty requires us to say that it is unjust that a woman carry to term a child conceived through rape, but that it is a far greater injustice to kill the child. This is a rare situation in which injustice cannot be avoided; the best thing that can be done is to reduce it. The first injustice lasts for nine months of a life that can be relieved, both psychologically and financially. The second injustice ends a life, and there is no remedy for that."
WHAT ABOUT INCEST? Abortion actually protects the perpetrator of the crime by concealing the incestuous act. Returning the girl to the same environment after an abortion does nothing to solve the primary problem. By taking away the result of the incest, abortion advocates think they can take away the act itself. Consider the example of Edith Young, a 12-year-old incest victim, who writes 25 years after the abortion of her child: Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely and have felt a sense of loss...The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'...My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception.
IF PREGNANCIES FROM RAPE AND INCEST ARE UNUSUAL, WHY CAN'T PROLIFERS COMPROMISE ON THIS ONE ISSUE? It is absolutely indisputable that the life within the womb is a unique human being. To say that this irreplaceable life can be destroyed for a crime its father committed is to deny the intrinsic humanity of the unborn. Civilized societies don't stoop to routine violence in an effort to conceal their social problems.
Abortion doesn’t stop rape! Abortion stops the life of the unborn child!
God,that's an easy one.If "rape victims" are the only ones who can get an abortion,then the incidence of "rape" in this country would jump to 10,000,000 a year....overnight.
I can answer that quite simply with another question: Do the circumstances of conception somehow determine the status of the baby?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
So the woman tracked down her mother in a nursing home somewhere and went and introduced herself. When the birth mother saw how lovely and smart and successful this woman was, she burst into tears of joy because the birth was the result of incest.
And the retired teacher was really freaked out by the experience - not by the fact that her biological parents were brother and sister, but by the fact that if this had happened in this day and age, she would have been aborted.
No sane man would ever force his wife or daughter to carry the child of a rapist.
If the gov't decided on a population program to increase our numbers, and abducted and impregnated our wives and daughters, the revolution would be swift and deadly.
A rapist is even WORSE.
That would then lead to more additions to the Violence against Women Act and make it even more draconian than it already is
Well said. I would never, EVER encourage a rape victim to have an abortion. But I couldn't look her in the eye and tell her she can't, either.
Abortion is not about the mother's rights. It is about the child's rights. The "right to choose" ignores the child's right to choose to live.
I believe it was Reagan who said something about all those supporting abortion are already living.
A life is a life and it doesn't matter how it came about.
"No sane man would ever force his wife or daughter to carry the child of a rapist. "
NO sane man considers murdering children.
How many rape victims become pregnant?is it rare or common?I am just curious
Maybe, in eons gone by. But now a rapist's intrusion can be fixed with the morning after pill and doesn't need to wait til the last month. It is an emotional argument way past reality. Incest, however, can be more problematic.. as it could go hidden until it becomes more complicated. Then it should be more left to responsible relatives and certainly not the State. The boggy about genetic damage is certainly in the realm of "wives tales", where, in reality, it takes many generations to produce genetic damage. The baby is a victim not the "problem" to be disposed of.
I understand why you want to have this exception, but it doesn't make any sense. Either you think its murder or not, and if you don't then who cares why someone wants to?
Yes indeed.
Then have at it partner, you can raise Ted Bundy's kid.
Another factor is when life begins. We could use the same factors that determine when death occurs - no heartbeat, no brainwaves. After a heartbeat and brainwaves occur in a fetus, then abortion is not an option.
It is still a child. Women should be protected from rape in the first place, but we have forgotten common sense on how to keep ourselves safe and defended. I'd be more pissed that a woman was raped in the first place. Of course, we just want the lazy way out of actually prrotecting ourselves and say we will just kill the kid instead.
Nice to know you would prefer to kill children.
If you could kill Ted Bundy's kid, how does that make you any better than Ted Bundy?
Probably all those that do or do not support anything, are already living too.
Something I was thinking about. What if it can be determined the baby will be born with severe genetic disorder / deformities..say blind, missing limbs, etc ?
Look up the threads on the "morning after pill". Many believe that it can cause a very early abortion by causing the fertilized egg to fail to implant in the uterine lining. SD, however, does not count the morning after pill as an abortion for the purpose of their ban.
Hey. It's a cruel world sometimes. If a woman is not locked in a guarded house, there will always be the potential for some cretin to cause her harm. Yes, there are many ways to protect yourself but nothing is foolproof.
That same cruel world makes me lose no sleep when an innocent relative of Osama is in the house when we incinerate him with a hellfire missile.
That same cruel world causes some of our most upstanding men to be lost to friendly fire.
That same cruel world tells me that God does not want my loved ones impregnated by or giving birth to a child from the disgusting, inferior genes of a sick rapist. If He is telling you something different, so be it.
A gang breaks into your house. Rapes your wife and three daughters. Against all odds, they all become pregnant. What do you do? If you want to talk in absolutes, let's do it.
More tripe from the pro-rape lobby.
Because ol Ted has no right, legal, moral, or otherwise to create that child in the first place. And I have no obligation legal, moral or otherwise to let it live.
I don't have any numbers. But if it accounts for 1% of all abortions, we can assume that it's fairly rare, but happens enough to be significant.
Crappy situation, through and through.
Some may think it's murder, but it's OK.
From a moral perspective no; from a legal perspective yes.
It means that, like most everything, it is relative.
Could you please provide us some data regarding your statement on the dangers of Plan B? Also, what pill or implant that prevents menstruation for 6 months to a year are you referring to? I'm familiar with the "3-month" plan ("Seasonale" is the brand name), which prevents menstruation for 3 months, but nothing more. However, note that any mono-phasal birth control, if taken daily, does the same thing as the commercial brand of the 3-month pill. Thanks in advance.
I do not, unfortunately, have links to articles. Google could find them for you however.
Amen brother, and I'm right behind you and well armed.
Well see, that's the problem. Those that oppose surgical abortion oppose the morning after pill with the same fervor. Ask cpforlife.org if you don't believe me. He/she considers the morning after pill an abortion.
My response requires no elaboration.
I'm sure you know that it's fairly customary here (at FR) to provide backup to statements you make that aren't opinions, if someone makes the request. I have done some Googling, along with some other research, and my information doesn't match what you stated in your previous post - which is confusing to me - and which is why I asked. Nitpicking on my part? No. I just like accuracy. Thanks anyway.
Charming.
Innocent children are not "its."
SD
And I have seen the opposite, where the rape victim abortee feels years of sorrow and anguish for the sin of abortion her parents chose for her.
There are no easy solutions. Killing an innocent child doesn't make the rape go away, it compounds one crime with another, and turns the victim into a predator.
SD
The other thing is, if it is morally acceptable to abort a child that is the result of rape, logically it must be morally acceptable to abort any other child, as they are all equally human.
There is either a human being at stake, or not.
Either we believe in equal treatment under the law, or we do not.
One thing you don't do is punish the child for the sins of the father. Two violent crimes don't make a right.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.