Rape does not justify abortion

[Zoom]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

Nicely done. Thread killer.

 

[Foxfyre]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

Nicely done. Thread killer.

Nope. Just Syrenn's beliefs which are absolutely her right to hold. As are all of the rest of us equally blessed with the right to hold the convictions we hold.

For me, a woman, the right to my body ends when I share it with a second life. I didn't have to take the risk to start that second life, but once I do, for me it is a matter of conscience of taking on the responsibility of that second life. It is not that much different than being asked to drive somebody someplace. I might not want the passenger. I may feel tied down and unpleasantly obligated because I have one. But neverthless, once I take on that passenger, I am as a matter of personal ethics and conscience required to consider his or her safety and well being as much as my own. I think that is an attitude that all should have. I would like that to be the socially acceptable norm.

 

[Katzndogz]

That is not what Cheryl said. She was free to be this child's mother and help her become the beautiful girl that she is. My Sister always said she is glad she had the baby. It helped her to focus on what mattered

Oh and I am glad too.

That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.

I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.

The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?

None whatsoever. Nor was I intending to justify abortion. Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do. After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child. After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out. But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge. It doesn't always work out. It just doesn't. We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's when it goes well. When it doesn't go well, it's a worse disaster. I know a woman that was raped and had the baby thinking it would help her heal. Instead she took out her anger on the baby, the girl and the young woman that baby became. The daughter could not live being the subject of a lifetime of total resentment and no love. She committed suicide at 17. Mother died two years later of acute alcoholism. A woman on another board was the product of a rape but given up for adoption. She made the mistake of tracking down her biological mother and got told if mother knew she would be tracked down and her privacy invaded, she would have had an abortion.

I knew the woman and her daughter. It was a total tragedy. Years and years of tragedy.

The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?

None whatsoever. Nor was I intending to justify abortion. Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do. After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child. After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out. But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge. It doesn't always work out. It just doesn't. We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.

There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason. I think we all might even agree on that.

And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents. I know better.

Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child. I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.

At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way. There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way. It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"unviable" means "can't survive"? Is that correct? Still and all, that's rough legislation.

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion. After reading up, Ravi is right. Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf. Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies. What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.

 

[Katzndogz]

The fact that some people are not qualified to be parents doesn't justify abortion either. Unless, that is, you think the government can mandate abortions whenever people don't meet whatever qualifications it imposes.

By the way, do you have any evidence she would not have taken her anger out on her child if she hadn't been raped?

None whatsoever. Nor was I intending to justify abortion. Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do. After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child. After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out. But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge. It doesn't always work out. It just doesn't. We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.

There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason. I think we all might even agree on that.

And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents. I know better.

Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child. I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.

At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way. There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way. It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.

Ahh, you know!

There was a time when the unborn baby was a human being deserving of life, but a recognition that there are times when a woman can be so driven by desperation that any alternative is desirable. Today, it's the reverse. No unborn baby is deserving of life, they aren't even alive and if they are, they are not human beings. There are exceptions to that general rule.

Like you, we can only hope to return to societal sanity.

 

[Katzndogz]

Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring. Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place. They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.

 

[Foxfyre]

None whatsoever. Nor was I intending to justify abortion. Just pointing out that while some women might happily and successfully embrace the child of a rapist, not all do. After knowing this woman, I truly believe she kept the child with some feeling that she was punishing some part of the rapist by her treatment of the child. After all, abortion was fully legal, this woman could have had an abortion, she could have adopted it out. But she chose to keep the child as an object of misdirected revenge. It doesn't always work out. It just doesn't. We would like to think it does, or could, but that's just not true.

There is no justification for abuse or mistreatment of any child for any reason. I think we all might even agree on that.

And I am not so naive to believe that every child is born to loving or competent or less-than-evil parents. I know better.

Again I will not presume to judge any woman who finds herself pregnant due to rape or incest or who is carrying a severely damaged child. I will leave that to her and her doctor and her God to deal with.

At the same time, I still have to believe that the unborn baby is a human life and I can't see that any other way. There was a time in America that almost everybody saw it that way. It is my fervent hope that we will return to being a society who again sees it that way.

Ahh, you know!

There was a time when the unborn baby was a human being deserving of life, but a recognition that there are times when a woman can be so driven by desperation that any alternative is desirable. Today, it's the reverse. No unborn baby is deserving of life, they aren't even alive and if they are, they are not human beings. There are exceptions to that general rule.

Like you, we can only hope to return to societal sanity.

And it is that mindset that I find so offensive and heart wrenching, i.e. that the unborn baby is not a human being and can be discarded at will. To the prolifer, none of us will enjoy life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without going through the pre-birth stages of life. I am all for the woman being in control of her own body and making choices that are right for her.

I am also all for the woman to have reverence for and appreciation for any life that she had a part in creating. I am all for her understanding that there isn't just her life and needs to be considered, but also a second life.

 

[Polk]

I would like to thank the people who posted in this thread in support of the OP's premise. A lot of people will criticize you for holding an "inhuman" position, but the reality is that if a fetus is fully human, the method of conception does not matter. While I do not agree with that premise, at least you've thought through the question.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is it possible that categories of life can be split off? No. There is no such thing as a child of a rapist or due to incest is somehow not life or something other than human. The circumstances of conception do not make that life into something different from a child that is wanted. ALL babies must not be alive or not human. That is what liberals intend. A wholesale redefinition of life itself. That's what is so horrifying at what liberals are doing.

If libs really believe that rape, including family rape is so traumatic that the girl should not be forced into bearing the child, then why do those same libs return the girl directly to her rapist? Why? How concerned are they really? In fact, they are not concerned about psychological or physical harm to the girl but they are very much concerned with anything that advances abortion and if they can use a sob story about a 14 year old girl that had three abortions due to her rapist father, they'll send her back to him for a fourth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring. Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place. They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.

But what they care about really isn't am issue is it? I can't imagine a vocation of destroying hundreds or thousands of babies for no better reason than the mother doesn't want them. But that shall be left to their consciences. They have to live with themselves.

But as for the mother faced with the terrible decision of whether to give the baby forced upon her through rape or dealing with the risks of pregnancy due to incest or faced with the prospects of a terribly deformed child, again I won't presume to judge her and will leave that to her doctor and her conscience to deal with. Certainly I won't judge the woman for whom a pregnancy is dangerous and the pregnancy needs to be ended.

But neither of my children, nor the one we lost through miscarriage, was planned, nor were any of them 'wanted' at the time of conception. But even the one that was lost was special. And I can't imagine a world without the two who lived.

I just want a society that reveres and holds life sancrsanct again. I want a society in which lives are not throwaways because they aren't convenient.

 

[Polk]

Is it possible that categories of life can be split off? No. There is no such thing as a child of a rapist or due to incest is somehow not life or something other than human. The circumstances of conception do not make that life into something different from a child that is wanted. ALL babies must not be alive or not human. That is what liberals intend. A wholesale redefinition of life itself. That's what is so horrifying at what liberals are doing.

If libs really believe that rape, including family rape is so traumatic that the girl should not be forced into bearing the child, then why do those same libs return the girl directly to her rapist? Why? How concerned are they really? In fact, they are not concerned about psychological or physical harm to the girl but they are very much concerned with anything that advances abortion and if they can use a sob story about a 14 year old girl that had three abortions due to her rapist father, they'll send her back to him for a fourth.

Reasoning behind "libs return the girl directly to her rapist" claim?

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't know the reasoning behind performing an abortion on a girl impregnated by a family member, not reporting it to the authorities and then sending her home.

Ohio Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Sued Over Incest Case Coverup | LifeNews.com

A suburban Cincinnati Planned Parenthood has been sued by a teenage girl who accuses it of covering up her sexual victimization by her father. Under Ohio law, doctors, nurses, teachers and other professionals are required to report alleged sexual abuse to authorities and the teen says that didn’t happen in her abortion case.

The unnamed girl filed the lawsuit in Warren County Common Pleas Court on Wednesday saying she told Planned Parenthood staff about the incest.

Why does PP fight so hard to protect rapists? What's the reasoning behind that?

Planned Parenthood, abortion clinics fight over medical records in child abuse investigations

Child rape is a serious crime and under both Kansas and Indiana law, when a girl under 14 is pregnant, she has been raped. A Kansas court has subpoenaed abortion clinic medical records likely to contain evidence of child rape and illegal late term abortions, issues being investigated by Attorney General Phill Kline. Planned Parenthood of Indiana has sued to prevent the Attorney General and the Medical Fraud Control Unit, from seeing the medical records of 12- and 13-year-old child abuse victims. Certainly, the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of a state, has the duty to investigate potential child abuse in order to protect children. And, as was previously proven by Life Dynamics, abortion clinics routinely cover up child rape.

 

[Polk]

The first link is based on nothing more than one person's claim. The second link is just some bloggers making claims without any supporting evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

The first link is based on nothing more than one person's claim. The second link is just some bloggers making claims without any supporting evidence.

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, however, is a little more than just a blogger. Whatever you think of the research done by his organization, it has become part of the national conversation.

Articles about Mark and Life Dynamics have been published in both Time and Newsweek and he has written for The Christian American, All About Issues, and Focus on the Family's Citizen magazine. He has also appeared on many local and national television news outlets including ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, Fox News, Nightline, 20/20, the O'Rilley Factor, and the 700 Club. He is also a regular contributor to World Net Daily, American Family Radio, Family News in Focus and the USA Radio Network.

In 1999, Mark launched LifeTalk as the nation's first pro-life television talk show. Today, his co-hosts include Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life; Cherie Johnson, Troy Newman, the national leader of Operation Rescue; Dr. Johnny Hunter, the president of America's largest black pro-life organization; and Janet Morana, co-founder of Silent No More
Abortion Pro life Planned Parenthood at Life Dynamics

 

[Katzndogz]

Any pro life position will be dismissed as not credible. I understood that from the beginning. Even before I made the post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Give us some credible evidence for your incredible statement.

Conception due to rape or incest is just a red herring. Abortionists, and agencies like Planned Parenthood that promote abortion routinely return girls to the rapist and to the very family member that impregnated her in the first place. They really don't care about the girl, just the rapist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

No, I said it was never legal.

No, you said it never happened, stop lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Smell the misogyny?

Note how these folks who claim they love freedom think nothing about telling women what they must do with THEIR bodies?

Lovers of freedom, my ass.

Feel free to go back through the thread and point out where I said women must do anything. After you do that, go read the rules for the Clean Debate Zone and stop attacking people you cannot refute.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You replied to something we were discussing without even knowing what you replied to....but you did highlight the fact that you don't need to make laws for what is already illegal, so it wasn't a total waste.

You made the statement that children who survive abortions are never left to die, you were wrong.

They are left to die if deemed unviable following the abortion. After reading up, Ravi is right. Even in Illinois, a viable baby who survives an abortion is given proper care and every reasonable effort must be made on its behalf. Obama was falsely accused that he wanted to kill those babies. What he voted against was legislation that would have required the doctor to try to save the unviable baby who survived the abortion.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but any baby that survives an abortion is, by definition, viable. That make Obama a person who voted to kill a live birth child.