Taking Well-Meaning Pro Life Efforts Too Far

[Nienna]

What if your daughter didn't *want* to have a baby at the age of 15? If she carried it, who would raise it? You? Her? Would you give it up for adoption? To who? Would you tell him/her they were conceived via force? What if, against your will, she had an abortion anyway? In some back alley? I'm also curious to know how you can say with any certainty that if you were raped you would carry the baby to term...

We're not talking about an abortion a month down the road here - we're talking about stopping a possible pregnancy from becoming a reality as a result of an bad, uncontrollable situation.

If it could be proven beyond a doubt that an egg had not been fertilized at that time, then, sure, prevent it, definitely. If it was a fifteen-year-old, she would not have the maturity to care for a baby, and I would most likely either raise it myself or seek adoption. But, even if my daughter didn't want the pregnancy, I would not expose her to the emotional and physical scars and risks of abortion. I would hope I have an open/trusting enough relationship with my daughters that she would not do this behind my back. I believe we could work through it together for the better. I do not say this lightly. As I mentioned before, I have secondhand experience of rape, and I would rather have had first-hand, so helpless and impotent do you feel to watch a loved one deal with it.

How do I know what I would do? "I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned byman. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth---so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane; with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot." A quote from my favorite book of all time Jane Eyre. One must make up her mind beforehand what her beliefs are. In times of high emotions, she should rule herself by these convictions rather than be tossed about by her emotions, incapable of determining how far logic is influenced by her feelings.

 

[Shattered]

If it was a fifteen-year-old, she would not have the maturity to care for a baby, and I would most likely either raise it myself or seek adoption.

How could you seek adoption, knowing that child wouldn't ever be adopted, because US laws are too strict? You would just be adding to the hundreds of thousands of unadopted children we already have.

If you raised it yourself, Yurt brought up a good point - what do you tell that child when he/she asks where his/her father is? Do you tell him/her he/she's a child of rape?

What about genetics? What if this man had aids, or some other incurable disease? What if you raise it, and your daughter ends up resenting the child and you? What do you tell him? "This is your mother, but she doesn't want anything to do with you because of the manner in which you were conceived."?

There's an awful lot of potential "bad" for us to just be ripping that choice away from someone.

 

[Bonnie]

I think the problem, Bonnie (or at least a major part of it), is those that are insisting these raped women and CHILDREN carry to full term are unwilling to adopt those children themselves.. Everyone says "ADOPTION!", yet there are soooooooooo many kids out there still waiting for families...

I do agree that is a problem that many children are not adopted and become wards of the state, Im just not convinced the way to solve that problem is through abortion. I don't think are easy answers to this, but there HAS to be a better solution than abortion. I don't know enough about the morning after pill to decide if that's really a viable choice. You asked the question if I had a daughter that was god forbid raped what would I do. I thought about that. My answer is this, first I would be very angry that it happened and I might even consider abortion for her, but then I would come to my senses and support my daughter in everyway to carry the baby to term and then let her decide if she wanted to keep the baby with my blessing or give it up for adoption also with my blessing, because I know that once that baby is born we are all gonna look at it and fall in love with him or her and it won't matter how that baby got here. I would make it my mission in life to see the rapist was caught and put away for a very long time, because anything less and I'd be going to jail for ripping his heart out through his throat with my own hands. Of course that's just my opinion.

 

[Nienna]

Who do you say is the father when the raped victim child asks, "who is my daddy?"

This is a heartrending question. I guess the answer would depend on by whom the child was being raised.

I understand the importance of the right to life. However, whose right is this? The unborn child? Do his/her peers say the same? Is a there a consensus from his/her peers? I know, peers are not the test; however, our law is founded on common law, that is, law from our "peers," or Judges, which are believed to at a minimum be our peers (would you want a judge from Russia, China, forbid Iran/Saudi) to decide your fate?

The right to life is owned by each individual. This is the crux of the whole debate, when does a "fetus" become a "person"? In my eyes, it is owned by the "organism" at fertilization.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question about peers and law.

Answer me this: we are all products of our genetics, therefore is it not true that an offspring of a rape victim will also not be the offspring a raper (is raper a word?). I will refrain at this point from discussing biblical stuff, for there is a time and place for that in government. In the instant case, even evolution will assert that an offspring brought to life from rape will undoubtedly carry the male's (rapist) sperm, thus his genetic tendencies and/or characteristics.

Let's take it a step further:

We are not ONLY products of our genes. Environment and personal will also play major parts in our lives. Just because a person inherits a tendency (and it is debatable whether or not one can actually inherit this) does not sentence that person to carry out that tendency. People can fight against their worst impulses, and if given a different environment, might not even be tempted. Also, the rapist's genes would only be half the genetic info. Hopefully, the tendency to NOT rape would be the dominant gene.

 

[Nienna]

How could you seek adoption, knowing that child wouldn't ever be adopted, because US laws are too strict? You would just be adding to the hundreds of thousands of unadopted children we already have.

I would seek adoption. If adoption was not available, I would raise it myself. Just because adoption is more difficult in the US does not make it impossible. Most of the children waiting to be adopted are older; a baby would not be as difficult to place in a family.

If you raised it yourself, Yurt brought up a good point - what do you tell that child when he/she asks where his/her father is? Do you tell him/her he/she's a child of rape?

If I raised it myself, I would tell the child all along it was adopted, that its adopted father is my husband. When the child became old enough to process more information, the circumstances surrounding the conception would be revealed. I believe it would go much easier on the child, being surrounded by a loving, supportive family to process this information.

What about genetics? What if this man had aids, or some other incurable disease? What if you raise it, and your daughter ends up resenting the child and you? What do you tell him? "This is your mother, but she doesn't want anything to do with you because of the manner in which you were conceived."?

These are a lot of specific circumstances, which could only be dealt with as they arose. One cannot forsee all the outcomes of this horrible situation. Of course there will be emotional and physical wounds to deal with. In a rape, that cannot be escaped; whatever choices you make, the situation has already been inflicted on you. It is my belief that this would only be made worse by adding abortion.

See genetics in reply to Yurt.

In the case of AIDS, there are many instances where the baby need not contract the disease. The victim is more likely to contract it. But a baby can be delivered by a method called a "bloodless cesarean section," and it would have a good chance of not contracting the disease.

 

[Shattered]

Most of the children waiting to be adopted are older; a baby would not be as difficult to place in a family.

For some reason, that comment makes me very sad.. It's sort of like saying babies are more important than other unwanted children, and deserve to be placed before "older" children. Then again, the thought of bringing yet another child into this world via rather violent method, when we can't provide families for the ones we already have, is just as disturbing.

 

[dilloduck]

For some reason, that comment makes me very sad.. It's sort of like saying babies are more important than other unwanted children, and deserve to be placed before "older" children. Then again, the thought of bringing yet another child into this world via rather violent method, when we can't provide families for the ones we already have, is just as disturbing.

Not more important-just more adoptable.

 

[Nienna]

For some reason, that comment makes me very sad.. It's sort of like saying babies are more important than other unwanted children, and deserve to be placed before "older" children. Then again, the thought of bringing yet another child into this world via rather violent method, when we can't provide families for the ones we already have, is just as disturbing.

I know! These poor kids! I have thought about adopting an older one, but it isn't feasible right now with four of my own. Maybe when my kids are older, if God so wills...

But bringing to term another baby and giving it up for adoption doesn't make it less likely that an older one will go unadopted (does that make sense? It's getting late). I mean that people who are looking to adopt a baby will not necessarily choose an older child, even if no baby is available. It's like when Grandma says to clean your plate because there are starving children in Africa. Wasting my food does not mean that those African children will be fed. Aborting a baby does not mean that an older child will be adopted in its place.

 

[Yurt]

I would seek

If I raised it myself, I would tell the child all along it was adopted, that its adopted father is my husband. When the child became old enough to process more information, the circumstances surrounding the conception would be revealed. I believe it would go much easier on the child, being surrounded by a loving, supportive family to process this information.

I appreciate you sentiment, however, is this not an out right lie? And please, if you want to talk about the lies told to foster kids/adopted kids, then let us do so. For you will sadly find that their experiences are "rude."

Lie to your kid once, they will not believe you twice. Lie to them again, they may never believe you. ME.

 

[Gem]

Who do you say is the father when the raped victim child asks, "who is my daddy?"

So because the child was unfortunately conceived by a criminal it would be best for the child to kill it, rather than have to put it through the trauma of dealing with that difficult information?

I know that you are just trying to look at all sides of this one, but give me a break...I don't know many people who would say that being dead is better than having to go through a tough emotional issue.

Since we are carrying things out to the n-th degree (the whole Saddam, Hitler argument) couldnt you say just as easily that any one who is unfortunate enough to have a parent in jail, a parent with a drug or alcohol problem, or even just a parent who is a real asshole would be better off aborted rather than having to live with any of the "bad parents" characteristics????

No healthy child is better off aborted. The abortion debate has never been about what is best for the child, but rather, what is best for the mother. Most people assume that even if they may have to deal with the fact that he was conceived in a terrible way most people would choose to be alive and dealing with it rather than dead.

The argument, as I see it, is whether or not the mother's right to abort the baby supercede the right of the baby to live...and if so, at what stage does the baby's right to live supercede the mother's wish to abort.

Does anyone really want our society to start deciding who gets to live and who would be better off dead based on whether or not they were conceived by appropriate parents?



(Sidenote: Mr. P, there is no need to be smarmy. I assummed we were discussing the difficulties present in the abortion debate in general - I was addressing your statement that the discussion is impossible because of people debating when viability begins...that discussion will obviously include zygotes, fetuss, babies, etc. When discussing the morning-after-pill we are, obviously, discussing the smallest of these. When discussing the abortion debate, as we were, it is not surprising to address any or all of these. If it was just a miscommunication then I apologize...but if it wasn't then theres really no need to get snippy.)

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have found that a very high percentage of people who are pro-life are only sympathetic to the person thats raped, so long as they carry to term anyway. pretty sad, in my opinion.

We've already been over this!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20041

 

[Shattered]

I do agree that is a problem that many children are not adopted and become wards of the state, Im just not convinced the way to solve that problem is through abortion. I don't think are easy answers to this, but there HAS to be a better solution than abortion.

Maybe there is a better solution out there that we just haven't found. But I don't believe bringing more children into the world under those circumstances is that solution, either. With a child born of rape, there's just too much stacked against them right from the beginning. Someone else stated they hoped that the child didn't pick up the genes from the father, which may cause them to rape someone else later in life.. What if they do?

Other than this circumstance, which is pretty extreme, I don't see any other use for the morning after pill. If we're talking an "accident", suck it up and take responsibility for your actions, including raising that child. If we're talking brute force, I don't think someone should be additionally forced into carrying/delivering. I don't believe that's a choice anyone but the rape victim can, or should make.

 

[Johnney]

it seems like it would be a choice. i think it would be a choice for anyone regardless of age. doesnt matter if they are minors. imposing your beliefs on a child in matters of a life that should have never been is just wrong. but let the child make the decission after alot of counseling by professionals.

 

[Johnney]

Truthfully, would any of you force your wives, or daughters to carry to term a child conceived in rape?

force no. its not my body, i cant force anyone to do anything with their body. but i would make sure she (mom or daughter) had the proper resources to make what they feel would be the appropriate decision for them.

 

[Gem]

Johnny Wrote:

but let the child make the decission after alot of counseling by professionals

The problem I have with this statement is that we have "professionals" counselling women and girls today...Planned Parenthood and their colleagues rave about the way they "counsel" women to consider all their options...ever take a look at how many women leave Planned Parenthood to look into adoption? That stats are not encouraging.

Abortion is an industry now...a multi-million dollar profit-making business...and any time the "professionals" counselling women to get, or not to get, abortions are a part of that business, then the so-called "CHOICE" women are supposed to get all of a sudden isn't a matter of choosing whether or not to have an abortion or give it up for adoption or keep it...but rather whether they want their abortion on Tuesday or Thursday afternoon.

A child can't get their ears pierced, get a tatoo, have a cavity filled, go on a field trip to the farm, or get off the bus at a friend's house without parental permission...WHY? Because a child is a parent's legal responsibility...if that child vandalizes something, the parent(s) must pay for it...some feel that if a child hurts someone (for example, the Columbine attacks) that the parent(s) are responsible...

So we have, at the moment, a society that believes that parents are responsible, legally and morally, for the raising of their children. Allowing children to get permission for serious, dangerous, and emotionally traumatizing surgery from strangers rather than their parents is a very dangerous slippery slope to be tip-toeing around.

 

[no1tovote4]

A fertilized egg isn't a fetus, Mr. P, and no one who is arguing with facts could say that it is. I believe the appropriate term is a zygote...although I know the term changes depending upon whether or not it is attached to the uterine wall.

The first 14 to 15 days it is a zygote, after that it becomes a fetus. The zygote usually has attached by then but still would be considered a zygote.

I have not yet called the offspring anything other than either offspring, or zygote at that time. Or "organism" all of which are scientifically accurate.

 

[no1tovote4]

Truthfully, would any of you force your wives, or daughters to carry to term a child conceived in rape?

I cannot "force" anybody to do anything. I would however attempt to impress upon them the innocence of the life within.

As I previously stated, I have a nephew, that for a time I actually adopted, that was conceived in just this way. I wouldn't trade him in for anything. He's 17 now and a truly good young man. Should his chance at life have been erased because of the actions of the biological contributor of the sperm?

 

[no1tovote4]

Let's take your exact same argument a little further. My wife and I KNOW that by using birth control pills, we are unnaturally and purposefully preventing a zygote from being created. A zygote that does not exist cannot attach itself to my wife's uterine wall so are we performing an abortion every month?

I already explained earlier that contraceptives that do not allow the formation of a zygote are not performing an abortion, even the Catholic church doesn't think that.

Even worse, sometimes a woman on the pill will develop a zygote that, because of the pill (a direct human interaction), is not allowed to attach to the uterine wall.

Not direct action, the contraceptive you use is designed to interrupt the formation of the zygote, it is not specifically designed to destroy life.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

So, do we ban the pill too? Then the condom? Then the rhythm method? Then abstinence? After all, a fertile woman who is not having sex is purposefully preventing a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall!

Not in my opinion.

I'm being facetious and I apologise for that but all I'm really doing is taking your argument to the next logical step. It really isn't a giant leap to go from "aborting after 2 months is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall is wrong" to "preventing a zygote from being created is wrong". I can't speak for anyone but myself but it is that natural progression of logic that scares me. And no one can even say it hasn't happened yet because one of the largest religions in the world took that logical step 2 thousand years ago.

No you are not, you are taking an argument where I have already stated that it is after the formation of a zygote and using a method designed to deny that zygote a chance at life that is an abortion and attempting to change the argument to one that you believe is insupportable.

Once it becomes a human organism it deserves the chance, without direct intervention, to survive, the same one that you had regardless of who the father might happen to be.

Now there are those that believe that God chooses when children are created and therefore using contraceptives are an attempt at usurping God's will, and that it shows a lack of Faith. I personally do not prescribe to such things, but my view of God is entirely different than most on this board.

 

[Johnney]

Johnny Wrote:


The problem I have with this statement is that we have "professionals" counselling women and girls today...Planned Parenthood and their colleagues rave about the way they "counsel" women to consider all their options...ever take a look at how many women leave Planned Parenthood to look into adoption? That stats are not encouraging.

Abortion is an industry now...a multi-million dollar profit-making business...and any time the "professionals" counselling women to get, or not to get, abortions are a part of that business, then the so-called "CHOICE" women are supposed to get all of a sudden isn't a matter of choosing whether or not to have an abortion or give it up for adoption or keep it...but rather whether they want their abortion on Tuesday or Thursday afternoon.

A child can't get their ears pierced, get a tatoo, have a cavity filled, go on a field trip to the farm, or get off the bus at a friend's house without parental permission...WHY? Because a child is a parent's legal responsibility...if that child vandalizes something, the parent(s) must pay for it...some feel that if a child hurts someone (for example, the Columbine attacks) that the parent(s) are responsible...

So we have, at the moment, a society that believes that parents are responsible, legally and morally, for the raising of their children. Allowing children to get permission for serious, dangerous, and emotionally traumatizing surgery from strangers rather than their parents is a very dangerous slippery slope to be tip-toeing around.

so you would punish the girl even further and make her carry someones bastard that was forced upon her? even though she didnt want to?

 

[Nienna]

I appreciate you sentiment, however, is this not an out right lie? And please, if you want to talk about the lies told to foster kids/adopted kids, then let us do so. For you will sadly find that their experiences are "rude."

Lie to your kid once, they will not believe you twice. Lie to them again, they may never believe you. ME.

How would it be a lie? An adoptive father who would love, care for, protect and provide for a child IS the father of the child. Ask any adoptive parent. The bond created by giving of yourself to this little one makes you by right the parent.

I would never conceal the fact that the child was adopted. As a child grew old enough to understand this word and ask questions, they would be answered truthfully. I don't discuss pornography, masturbation, torture, etc. with my children (ages 3-8). They are too young to understand and deal with this type of subject. Just so, I would delay the revelation of the hideous conception of the adopted child until it was old enough.