Posted on 08/25/2012 8:30:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yes, I absolutely agree with your post.
In my mind, the original crime in the scenario of impregnation by way of rape is that the male proceeded with obtaining the consent of the female.
The situation cannot be corrected without obtaining that consent.
What needs to be done is that we must go back and ask her how to proceed, thus it is her choice and it always was her choice, sadly the act of rape denied that choice.
Certainly, if she decided to proceed with the pregnancy and either raise the baby or put the baby up for adoption, then that is the best solution in my mind.
If she decides not to do that, however, then I do support that decision. I will neither judge her, nor condemn her, but I will judge and condemn the rapist, and I will support the female victim.
I cannot and will not under any circumstance be party to compounding the original crime by further denying the victim her consent.
I agree, Drew68. It would be extremely difficult.
After contemplating this, I can only say that the crime of rape is a horrible and evil a crime as murder.
It is as destructive and self centered as anything that I can even imagine.
Damn those who commit this crime, damn them to Hell.
I know what it says. It says Jesus told her to Go and sin no more.
That drove people away too. People rejected Christ then as they do now.
Got any more heroes you wanna slam??
Oh absolutely. And after I got rid of that bastard child; I divorce that slut wife of mine.
Wouldn’t want her “anywhere around my family” either.
/huge sarc
You have shown more sense and compassion on this thread than your opponents.
I am against abortion for convenience, but rape is a completely different scenario. I’m amazed that so many people can’t see the difference.
If the woman is can endure the pregnancy and raise the child or put it up for adoption that would be the best situation.
But forcing that situation on the victim of a brutal crime is also evil and will cause her further injury. To deny this is being willfully stupid.
Abortion in the cases of incest and rape is a red herring. One only has to ask: would the “pro-choice” advocates be satisfied if abortions were limited to those who were raped or had an incestuous relationship?
I’m so disgusted by the behavior of “conservatives,” both the pundit class and those here on FR, that I simply have to hold my tongue and walk away.
Akin was simply repeating what John Wilke MD said. Wilke was distinguishing “legitimate” (i.e., forcible) rape from statutory rape, which though illegal is usually consensual and therefore does not induce the stress, psychological and physical trauma that forcible rape creates.
And I’m still not convinced Wilke’s main point from a physiological standpoint was wrong. Animal models consistently demonstrate higher rates of spontaneous miscarriage related to high stress.
We taught NFP for ten years including couples who wanted children. Stress negatively effects fertility. Period. What is more stressful than what Akin was addressing, forcible rape?
So there IS plenty of medical science to back up his and Wilke’s point. Their position has not been refuted in this regard.
More importantly is that we do not as a culture condone capital punishment for rapists. Why the hell are we making an exception for capital punishment for the other innocent victim, the child conceived?!?
But the “conservatives” followed Romney’s lead and threw Akin under the bus. Even catholic Ryan caved upon Romney’s lead. This is a microcosm of what we can expect from the GOP on social issues going forward.
A pox on both parties and their sycophant pundits both here on FR and elsewhere.
Yes I’m going to hold my nose and vote R/R. But this country is due for chastisement of Biblical proportions and R/R will not save us from what is heading our way.
Quote that Movie ..... Rob Roy takes a deep breath and declares, “It’s not the baby that needs killin’. ... We do not kill the innocent in order to punish the guilty.
or do the math. A woman can get pregnant only 6 days per month. What are the chances she gets raped during that time frame.
or more math. There are at least ONE THOUSAND INNOCENT BABIES KILLED EVERY STINKING DAY. YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT?
Thank you for those kind words, desertfreedom765.
I know my position on this matter infuriates some, and that makes me sad to say the least.
But I must stand by it no matter what. I believe that to deny the female her consent is but a continuation of the crime, and I cannot be party to that. To return her consent to her is right, and it is justice.
She msut be the one to decide the resolution.
What about the “consent” of the other innocent victim, the baby conceived?
Your position is sophistry in any orthodox Judeo-Christian analysis.
But in a post Christian culture, among posters who are propagandized to the point of eclipse of reason, yours is seen by some as laudatory.
May god have Mercy on us all for our hubris. .
The mother’s consent was denied first.
It really isn’t a hard concept to grasp.
If you FORCE her to have the child of a rapist, then you may well be FORCING her to do something that she does not want to do, much as her rapist FORCED her to do.
I will not be party to that.
Why are you fearful of getting her consent?
If delivering such a child is something that she wants to do, then she will do so.
If it isn not something she wants to do, then I imagine she won’t.
The burden of this falls squarely upon the rapist and no one else, so direct you righteous anger at him, because he certainly deserves it.
But forcing that situation on the victim of a brutal crime is also evil and will cause her further injury. To deny this is being willfully stupid.
Woman that have abortions are often plagued with terrible guilt, remorse and depression for decades. They know in their hearts “I killed my baby”. That causes infinitely more injury than carrying a child for nine months. If the woman wants to give the baby up for adoption at least she will know “My baby is alive somewhere” instead of “I killed my baby”. You mention the rape victim, by advocating abortion for rape, you now have 2 victims.
I agree with your thoughts, as well.
There are indeed two victims, little jeremiah, and they were both victimized by the rapist.
But in forcing by law a woman to bear the child of a rapist, you may well have more than one perpetrator at that point.
My position is pro what makes the victim feel whole again, and not what I tell her makes her feel whole again.
I want to believe that a large number of women would not choose to abort, but rather to deliver and adopt. It’s hard for me to imagine that someone would choose to raise the child of their rapist, but I expect that that has happened in the past, and will happen again.
But I cannot deny the victim the choice of abortion in this case. I can’t do that in good conscience. It’s not like I want babies ot be aborted. What I want is for men not to rape women, but alas...
She should have the opportunity to give her consent or to not give her consent, because that was denied her by a violent criminal, and that is a wrong that must be righted before anything else can proceed.
No.
There are two lives at stake here, not one. When and how can it be just to ask or grant the consent of one person at the cost of taking the life of an innocent other? The injustice of the unintended pregnancy does not and cannot justify the murder of the other innocent victim of the crime. One injustice does not make another injustice morally acceptable.
The right to life of the innocent comes before any notion of consent. Being an innocent victim of rape does not confer the right to take the life of the other innocent victim of the same crime.
You are the victim of a very pernicious and diabolical form of propaganda, yet you think your position to have some sort of merit.
It does not.
Murder is a more grave crime than rape. If this were not the case capital punshnent would equally apply to both.
Being a victim of rape does not justify being the initiator of the murder of the innocent.
And yes, abortion is murder.
She already HAS the child after conception. Conception has already occurred. It was part of the non consentual crime committed against her. It is already in the past. She can no more consent to having the child conceived than she consented to being the victim of the rape. They were both part of the same act. In the past.
The only thing she can consent to now is to murder the child or not murder the child. Being the victim of a crime in the past does not give her the right to be the perpetrator of a crime in the present. The unjust act of the past does not make the murder in the present just.
Consent has nothing to do with it. Now she can only consent to murder the innocent victim conceived in the initial act of injustice, or not murder it.
That too is unjust. But that's also reality.
No it doesn't. The right of the mother to consent to being impregnated was denied before the child was conceived.
You are the victim of a very pernicious and diabolical form of propaganda, yet you think your position to have some sort of merit.
No, I am not. I arrived at my position via my own thought process and nothing else, and my position does have merit.
Murder is a more grave crime than rape. If this were not the case capital punshnent would equally apply to both.
I believe the crimes are equivalent in their severity. Man's law is not perfect, and neither are its perscribed punishments. I have already stated that I would not find a woman guilty of murdering her rapist.
Being a victim of rape does not justify being the initiator of the murder of the innocent.
The victim didn't initiate any murder at all. If she choses not to bear the child of her rapist, it is the rapist that initiated the killing of his child, and no one else.
And yes, abortion is murder.
In most cases, I agree with that. In the case of rape and incest, it is a justifiable killing, although it is indeed a tragedy of tremendous proportion.
I had a bad experience in my life which I won’t go into detail. I wound up having an abortion, which I bitterly regret to this day. I would infinitely rather that I carried the child with a very bad beginning (conception) to term and given him or her up for adoption, than know that I killed a human being, a baby.
I know from bitter, bitter personal experience that carrying a child - unwanted, unasked for, no actual (real) or perhaps known father - for nine months, is absolutely to be preferred than carrying the weight of having caused an innocent child to die, for 40 years.
By the word "has" I mean "bear". I am not prepared to deny her her right to consent as her rapist did. Perhaps you are. I am not.
The only thing she can consent to now is to murder the child or not murder the child. Being the victim of a crime in the past does not give her the right to be the perpetrator of a crime in the present. The unjust act of the past does not make the murder in the present just.
She isn't the perpetrator of any crime if she choses to abort the child of a rapist. You may call her a criminal, but I don't. The person who put the life of the child at risk is the rapist, and he did so by callously forcing upon someone who didn't consent and couldn't reist.
Consent has nothing to do with it. Now she can only consent to murder the innocent victim conceived in the initial act of injustice, or not murder it.
I don't see it as murder, I see it as a justifiable killing.
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.