In the case of rape, it's usually the perpetrator who wants the abortion. The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation. The perpetrator wants to "destroy the evidence." It's great we are so sensitive to the needs of those who commit incest.
Seriously. That's a bizarre enough statement that I'd honestly like to know the reasoning behind it.
But shouldn't the wishes of the would-be mother be taken into account as well? If she were forced to have a child because of a rape, that would be pretty rough. Imagine looking into the eyes of your child and reliving that moment... over and over again.
There have to be exceptions... extreme cases. Abortion is not birth control, but to ban it completely is definitely not the right thing to do.
I've got to call 'BS' on this one. You can still get DNA evidence from an aborted fetus/baby. So no evidence is being destroyed.
I can see a rape victim not wanting to carry the baby to term, as it would be a constant reminder of the episode of rape.
I've heard, and somewhat agree with the sentiment of "why punish the baby for the rapist's crime?" But I still would have to side with the rape victim should she choose to abort.
Perhaps a system (not to trivialize rape or abortion) similar to a car insurance claim? If the victim reports the rape to the police within a certain time frame, then abortion is an option.
I haven't thought this option through thoroughly, so don't slam me too quickly.
The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation.
Huh?!
"In the case of rape, it's usually the perpetrator who wants the abortion. The victims want to have the child, and it's usually their only way out of the situation. The perpetrator wants to "destroy the evidence." It's great we are so sensitive to the needs of those who commit incest."
It makes sense.