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!
The X-Case ruling in Ireland legalised infantcide in those circumstances;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Case
Playing the hypocrite card only works if the person you're playing it against is a hypocrite. Nice try. Tap dance all you want, you're still trying to unrape a woman by having a kid's limbs ripped off. Rape is a horrible thing, but killing some kid will not improve the situation.
Here's a tip: If you don't want to debate something on FR, don't come into a thread about it and run your mouth.
Have a nice day.
The part of that statement I disagree with is the use of the word "lots." I'm sure these situations are very rare, and are beside the point anyway because my objection to the rape exemption is that the child is brutally murdered, not that the child might be brutally murdered under false pretenses.
That was the statement. Can you back it up with one factual example or just BS?
The part of that statement I disagree with is the use of the word "lots." I'm sure these situations are very rare, and are beside the point anyway because my objection to the rape exemption is that the child is brutally murdered, not that the child might be brutally murdered under false pretenses.
That said, I'm sure I could go digging through court records and media accounts for a week and find you a bunch of proven cases. Am I willing to devote the time? No. And unless your thesis is that these situations never occur, you and I should drop this. In fact, I'm dropping it either way.
So I take it your answer is you expand your family?
Maybe. Adoption is always an option. Killing a small child is not. Tragedy hapens. The choice is whether to engage in the absolute worst possible response to the violence.
Here's a tip to you. I debate intelligent rational people. I choose not to debate with you.
Also, anyone who needs respect by insisting that others call them Mr. has a huge insecurity problem. Another reason I choose not to debate with you.
I am pro-life, btw, so go peddle your antagonism elsewhere.
Ping, bookmark and Praise God!
Or you can give that kid to me. I would love to raise another.
BTW, I love your choice of screen name.
When you are raped, let us know your feelings then.
Heads up. Wilkow tearing up abortion, just started:
www.wabcradio.com
Listen live
Thread up.
Wilkow thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1594950/posts?page=22
Going to mass.
None whatsoever.
I never said it wasn't.
Actually, the reason the callsign is "Mr. Silverback" is because just plain "Silverback" was taken when I signed up for a Yahoo account.
Be careful you don't sprain an ankle jumping to conclusions, sparky.
BOOKMARKING!
And how does a Yahoo account relate to this FR 'callsign'? Mr? Kind of funny. LOL
Ask Ray Charles (if he were still alive) or Stevie Wonder--or their many fans-- if they would have been better off killed before birth. As the article states, we all have our disabilities, of one sort or another. Few of us, having been born, would prefer to have been killed before we saw the light of day. There is value in every life, even those led by people who are severely disabled.
I realize I am replying to someone that this post may have nothing to do with, however after reading probably 150 posts I am greatly flustered that noone has brought this up. PAY ATTENTION.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.... EASILY.... WHAT THE *RIGHT* THING IS TO DO!
People are now debating "If you *THINK* you can do it fine! but you won't change my opinion!"
Lets just get this straight... all of your crapped up logic aside.
Regardless of whether or not you think its cruel to "Force" someone to refrain from killing a baby.
YOU MAY *THINK* (SUBJECTIVE) IT TO BE RIGHT TO LET A WOMAN ABORT A CHILD FROM RAPE/INCEST.
BUT KILILNG A CHILD IS STILL WRONG (OBJECTIVE)
You have the facts, You know what is truely right and wrong. And regardless of what you think, and interestingly enough...
Moral of my point: Just because the right thing to do is hard, doesn't mean you can choose not to do it (while understanding at the same time what you are doing)
(obviously....)
Taking into account it is WRONG to kill a child (IN whatever situation), who are YOU to base the decision on your own opinion?
YOU are in essence playing God. Be careful.
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.