Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault
Life News ^ | 4/5/10 | Amy Sobie

Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?”

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this “fact,” it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a “rapist’s child.”

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their children’s lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman “un-pregnant.”

Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a woman’s life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel “let it happen.” Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a “quick and easy” way to avoid dealing with the woman’s true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child “conceived in rape,” feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five 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."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.”

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, “It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

That’s a slogan we can all live with.


Citations

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.

3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.

4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521-524 next last
To: Hank Kerchief

“Abortion is not murder of a human being...”

Yes it is.


81 posted on 04/05/2010 8:28:13 PM PDT by narses ("lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; KarenMarie

And the baby would have suffered death either way; at least he died feeling the love from his parents.

Everyone born has to die anyway. Is that a reason to murder them?


82 posted on 04/05/2010 8:28:15 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Duh - it’s already pinged.

Beddy bye!


83 posted on 04/05/2010 8:28:57 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The liberals, believe it or not, have very strict moral absolutes. Yes, they value nearly the exact opposite things we do, but they still have moral absolutes as strict as any Taliban hiding out in Pakistan.

That, in and of it’s self, is not a convincing argument.


84 posted on 04/05/2010 8:43:16 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners, no mercy. 2010 is here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

Nah, they fight among themselves.

I’m talking about these:

“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson

And, one of my all time favorites:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke


85 posted on 04/05/2010 8:46:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You’re making my argument.


86 posted on 04/05/2010 8:47:54 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners, no mercy. 2010 is here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

You’re being very obscure.

I can only assume you want a liberaltarian adolescent boy fantasy world. Unless you explain yourself. But I’ll have to read any replies tomorrow. Insufficient sleep for days. Gotta get horizontal.


87 posted on 04/05/2010 8:54:13 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

If I’m wrong about what you mean, my apologies.


88 posted on 04/05/2010 8:54:44 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
ABORTION AND THE “HARD CASES”: rape, incest, and life of the mother.

What about abortion in cases of rape or incest?

Abortion Q & A — BY JOHN CARDINAL O'CONNOR, ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK

July of 1990

http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cardocqanda.html#qa13

Some evils are what we call intrinsic evils, that is evil in themselves, so that no circumstances can justify them. Direct abortion is such an evil. It simply can not be morally justified. This principle holds even in regard to rape or incest. An unborn baby is an innocent human being who has committed no crime, regardless of how conception came about. It is never morally right to destroy an innocent human being.

What About Rape?

http://www.prolife.org.uk/about/keyabortion.htm

Abortion is often recommended in cases of rape. But abortion does not undo the rape; instead it compounds violence with violence. It is an indefensible response to a complex situation. Putting aside the injustice of an innocent child being killed for her father's crime, there is evidence that abortion only deepens the trauma of the rape victim as well as taking the innocent life of her child. A rape victim requires special emotional care regardless of whether or not she obtains an abortion. By recommending abortion as a quick and easy way to “lessen the impact”, a disservice is done to raped women.

By promoting abortion specifically in the case of rape one implicitly argues that the means of conception determines the value of a human life. This line of reasoning fails to acknowledge that, biologically speaking, there is no difference between a human being conceived by a loving couple and a human being conceived by rape. Are we to deem born children conceived by rape as having no right to life?

It is also worth noting that statistically speaking, violent rape is extraordinarily unlikely to result in pregnancy; moreover, women tend to love their babies even if they hate the father.


Priests for Life Q&A on Abortion
http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html

A key study on this topic is the book Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, By David C. Reardon. In this book, read the testimonies of 192 women who reveal that most pregnant sexual assault victims don't want abortion, and those who do abort only suffer more. This is the most comprehensive study published on this theme. http://www.afterabortion.org

Dr. Theresa Burke also addresses this topic in her book Forbidden Grief, www.forbiddengrief.com. One example from that book is this testimony: “The rape was bad, but I could have gotten over it. The abortion is something I will never get over. No one realizes how much that event damaged my life. I hate my rapist, but I hate the abortionist too. I can’t believe I paid to be raped again. This will affect the rest of my life.”

Please also see the following testimony from Jenni Speltz, who was conceived in rape: http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jennispeltz.htm.

In many cases the best choice is adoption. It is important to note that there are hundreds of thousands of couples that want to adopt but have been unable to because so many children are never allowed to be born.

What about the life of the mother? (by Fr. Frank Pavone) http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html

Answer: There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother's life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no. There is no medical situation whose only solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified. Morally speaking, furthermore, it is never right to directly kill an innocent person, even if good results are foreseen. We do not say that a baby's life is more important than the mother's. We do say that they are equal. You may never directly kill either one of them. If, in spite of the best medical efforts, one or both of them die, nothing morally wrong has been done, because an effort has been made to save life, but has failed. That is far different from killing.

See also these articles by Fr. Frank Pavone:

”Persuading People that Rape Does Not Justify Abortion” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/column8-17rape.html

What moral/ethical/good things are ever done in back alleys anyway?! “Safe, then Legal” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2003/03-10-06safethenlegal.htm

Three expert physicians’ testimonies stating that there is no “medical reason” for having an abortion. http://priestsforlife.org/articles/dropinion.html

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

89 posted on 04/05/2010 8:55:59 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
The notion that a child should have to suffer for the sins of a parent is hardly unknown in the Bible, and the sin of a rapist should be considered grave indeed.

Children suffer the consequences of their parents evil, but to lay that at the feet of God amounts to blasphemy. God never punishes the innocent for the sins of the guilty (Ezekiel 18). God acts to inhibit the sins of the guilty, and in so acting innocent people are harmed.

It is important to remember that God has the authority to take life, and man does not except in the case of a government exactly capital punishment on the guilty. God often takes the (physical) life of the righteous or innocent, but that is not punishment. In fact, it is a mercy that is reserved to God.

A woman who shoots a rapist is justified. But if she shoots his sister or his child, that is not justified.

90 posted on 04/05/2010 9:15:24 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Abortion is not murder of a human being, and if that spurious argument is the only one you have against abortion, you have no argument at all.

Sure it is. The woman is pregnant with a entity that is the result of the fusion of a human egg with a human sperm, giving it the complete set of human DNA. Your denying the humanity of that which with the woman is pregnant is delusion of the highest degree.

Abortion is wrong, but not for reasons you hold.

Well then, if it's not wrong because it's not murder, then on what basis do you determine that it IS wrong?

91 posted on 04/05/2010 9:17:21 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; little jeremiah

You’re not making any sense either.

And you’re doing just what you’re condemning in others, but failing to see that in yourself.

It seems to be a common trait in liberaltarians.


92 posted on 04/05/2010 9:19:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

What I’m saying is this: in the 20’s we banned alcohol. Good arguments have and can be made about the evils of alcohol and why people shouldn’t do it ever and why society shouldn’t tolerate it.

So we banned it. What was the consequence? Bootleggers. Gangstas. Al Capone. Speakeasies. People drank just to defy the govt. A giant and competitive illicit market was instantly created that resulted in a criminal underground with escalating violence.

One of the favorite tools of the criminals was the Tommy Gun. A series of high-profile killings by the rum-running gangsters resulted in the Gun Control Act of 1934, which was supposedly designed to reduce the violence, but in hindsight was the first shot in taking our gun rights. Similar comparisons can be seen in the drug war and the 4th amendment. Not that I’m an advocate of legalizing drugs, but my point is that all out bans on things have two effects on human behavior: 1) rebellion against the ban, 2) the power and control hungry to use the ban to take other freedoms away.

Which is why I’d allow a genuine rape and incest exception for abortion. I am afraid a total ban would create unintended consequences, not the least making the victims of crimes outlaws in their own right. Not only does the backlash scare me, but the liberals would twist it to their purposes.

Health care would be a great example. I see abortion ban supporters arguing ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ as reasons to ban abortion. Well, that’s the same argument the socialist Dems are using to justify national health care. And you know if there was an abortion ban, they would use that in court to say we must protect every life thru universal health care. And you know they will.

My point in my response to your quotes by Jefferson and Burke is to say that I agree with them. All the laws in the world can’t police men who are internally corrupt. My hope is with a rape and incest exception that the girl or woman would make the right choice and keep the baby, but I won’t go as far to make them outlaws if they don’t. Making such a law isn’t a substitute for a lack of personal morality and will create far more problems than it solves.

In the end we’ll still save 99% of the babies being aborted today. I’d rather have results than philosophical but pyrrhic victories.


93 posted on 04/05/2010 9:26:59 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners, no mercy. 2010 is here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; metmom; bcsco; wagglebee; houeto
It’s late and I’m tired. I’m not your enemy

I don't know about others, but I have no problem with the libertarian argument against government involvement in abortion legislation. To any libertarian who says -- "Let's not get the government involved in protecting the innocent unborn human beings" I say, -- "Fine, and get the government out of protecting any humans against the murderers, not just the unborn".

In a free society in the libertarian mold the abortionists will be machine-gunned in front of their clinics, adn the "mothers" won't do much better.

Have a good rest.

94 posted on 04/05/2010 9:39:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
As dispassionately as I can view the issue, here goes: In an instance of rape, the rapist is guilty of a terrible crime.

At most, and not often, the mother-to-be was unable to say no, and in some cases may have entered into a situation where whe lost control.

The most innocent of the parties is developing inside the mother-to-be, who was not there at the start of the crime.

That is who an abortion punishes, the one who had no say, no hand in the rape. They get the death sentence for the actions of others.

I have a fundamental problem with that.

Incest: the same problem exists, whether the incest is truly between related family members, or an unrelated family member by marriage (The stepfather in the example the writer uses is not a blood relation).

Still, the one who is executed for the crime of at least one other is the one who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and again, the sentence is death.

No matter how hard I have tried to look at this from every angle, I am left with the same problem in both instances.

It is the unarguably innocent who suffer death for the actions of others.

In no other instance in our culture is this allowed or condoned. Nor should it be in this one.

95 posted on 04/05/2010 9:40:27 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

“forcing someone by law to bear the result of an injustice doesn’t ring well with me in a free country.”

I agree, as long as you don’t have to kill anyone that is innocent of the injustice. Like the unborn person.

Freegards


96 posted on 04/05/2010 9:47:11 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I don’t know that I could.do that. I don’t know that I could hold a suffering,dying baby, thinking I could have prevented that. It is a horrible choice to have to make and I don’t know that I could view a decision to a abort a baby to prevent unnecessary suffering the same as waking up and deciding I didn’t want to be pregnant anymore.

I know the outcome is the same... a dead baby ... but I guess the struggle for me is that I don’t think I am convinced that it is ok to put someone thru pain and suffering before dying when the pain and suffering part of it could be shortened. This is one of the few things in my life that I am not cut & dried, black & white one.

Forgive me if I don’t reply any more today. It is almost 1AM and I have an early morning. But I appreciate the discussion and will check back tomorrow... I want to ask about the ‘make a choice between mother or baby’ dilemma.

Thank you.


97 posted on 04/05/2010 9:58:08 PM PDT by KarenMarie (NEVER believe anything coming out of DC until it's been denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Some will call you pro abortion and a baby killer even though you could be 100% against abortion but because you fail to effectively impose your will on others then you will be a baby killer and pro abortion. You miss the point completely...

The question is whether or not you believe there is a human being existing before birth and if so should this person be murdered for revenge, or the psycholical comfort of the mother, or for any reason. Once the deed is done e.g. a pregnancy following rape THEN what. Is carrying a child for 9 months physical or psychological torture -will killing it make things better?

Anyway, IF one truly believes that there is a human being existing before birth THEN it is quite understandable to see why even rape seems a hollow reason to murder an innocent...

There is no 'wiggle room' here like some would imply...

98 posted on 04/05/2010 10:07:41 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom

This Snot Rag fellow makes some really idiotic arguments.

If a fetus is not a human being, what is it? An aardvark?

Then what? The blue fairy comes to the delivery room and with a wave of her wand turns that non-human into a human baby at the moment of birth?

Idiotic.


99 posted on 04/05/2010 10:45:27 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

“What I’m saying is this: in the 20’s we banned alcohol.”

How is it that alcohol prohibition becomes an argument against prohibiting everything the culture of death likes?


100 posted on 04/05/2010 10:47:52 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521-524 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson