Ravi
Diamond Member
That is not true and it has never been true.
Rape does not justify abortion
- Thread starter Quantum Windbag
- Start date
Government hearings seem to indicate otherwise.
"The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are reported to have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Two nurses from the hospital's delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous `induced labor' or `live-birth' abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. 27
[Footnote]
[Footnote 27: See Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Jill L. Stanek, R.N.); Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4292 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., July 20, 2000 (statement of Allison Baker, R.N., B.S.N.).]
According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal deformity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (including warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth. According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome. 28
[Footnote] Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. 29"
Committee Reports - 106th Congress (1999-2000) - House Report 106-835
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Rape also doesn't justify a woman to be forced to relive the event every day for 9 months until she can put the baby up for adoption and try to begin to heal psychologically.
I love how you guys wrap yourself in the garments of compassion while conveniently omitting that fact.
The current system is fine. If a woman abhors abortion more than the act of rape, it is her choice to carry the baby.
If not, then she can't be forced to undergo mental torture simply because zealots like yourself think you have a say in this matter.
Last edited:
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Forcing a mother to birth the product of rape is also evil.
Lest you try to say differently.
Yes it is.
There is still a death. The death of the baby, a death for which the responsible party is never brought to justice.
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
Want to know what's evil? Forcing a woman to carry to term and go through the hell of labor for, a baby conceived only because a disgusting piece of human filth put her through one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through.
It's sick. How you can not at the very least compromise on your abortion position to let a woman begin recovering, healing, and hopefully forgetting as soon as possible is beyond me.
Why shouldn't the rapist be made to answer for the crime? It's murder. The rapist is responsible. Why should he get to escape punishment? Is it part of his healing too?
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
If done as early as I'm sure any rape victim would prefer, it's the death of a cluster of cells the size of a pin head.
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
This is why I haven't come into this forum and participated...I have a really hard time not cussing and being an asshole
But anyway, here goes...What in the fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about a rapist escaping punishment? I don't even have the first fucking clue how this particular debate is even about the rapist anyway. It's about the raped, and her situation afterwards.
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,085
- 5,465
- 370
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and then have to spread my legs so that some stranger can suck the product of rape from my body, especially so close to the time of the rape, and then expect me to be better because of it. I have tried to imagine it.....I imagine it would only complicate the issues.
By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
By the way, I have a sister that was raped and became pregnant
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
That's harder to imagine than carrying that love child around for 9 months while it kicks you and reminds you every single day that you were raped?
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,085
- 5,465
- 370
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.
This is why I haven't come into this forum and participated...I have a really hard time not cussing and being an asshole
But anyway, here goes...What in the fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about a rapist escaping punishment? I don't even have the first fucking clue how this particular debate is even about the rapist anyway. It's about the raped, and her situation afterwards.
Is it possible to have a rape victim without a perpetrator? Don't think so. Justify that please.
The abortion of a baby is murder. Everyone agrees that the woman who is raped is a victim of a horrible crime. She should be afforded an opportunity to escape the worst consequences of the crime committed against her. This doesn't change the nature of the murder of the baby. It just puts responsibility for that death where it belongs. It is not unlike the situation of a woman who is being beaten. She pulls out a gun and shoots at her attacker but misses and hits a bystander, an innocent party. She is not guilty of the death, her attacker is.
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.
PixieStix
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2009
- 15,085
- 5,465
- 370
Rape is a tragedy any way you look at it
My niece still does not know that she was the product of a rape. Hope she never does. Because she really is a well balance girl, and I love her very much.
She is a very lucky girl in more ways than one!
The daughter of the woman I knew was not lucky. She had 17 years of pain, then ended it with a couple of bottles of pills.
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 48,455
- 18,856
- 2,250
But that is not what the law charged the individual for was it ? So this charge was regardless of it involving the mother, because what resulted in the murder charge, was that the person was trying to kill and/or did kill the unborn child in which was the intent by the perp when committed the act when it was committed (or) was being committed for that specific reason in the attack right ? Now if the person would have murdered the mother and the unborn child in the attack, then it would have resulted in a double homicide.
The other answer to what is highlighted in red above also - Yes he is still guilty of killing the unborn child, because if the woman would have gotten to the clinic to abort the child, but would have had second thoughts about doing so, and would have wanted to save the unborn childs life because she realized that what she was doing was wrong, it in no way releases one way or the other the drunk driver from his or her own responsibility to have taken the life of anyone be it unborn or born for that matter, when the event took place that took the life of the unborn child at that specific point and time in which that event had taken place.
The question is now, if a mother has no good reason for aborting her baby in which she is carrying in her womb, and therefore she goes ahead with the act of ending the pregnancy for no good reason, and even having help in doing so, then should the government or ((someone/independent council)) that would be against both ((if the government is involved also)), be moved to start up a criminal investigation into why these people ended the life of a healthy unborn child, and especially one that wasn't conceieved out of rape, and/or within a forced incest case (or) if in later term maybe, where as the baby might be a danger to the mothers health as deemed by the medical profession or that the baby is so badly deformed that it would be impossible for it to live once taken to term somehow, in which should be amongst only a few of the only acceptional cases that an abortion should be performed at all IMHO by law.
Now does a mother not realize that she is taking her babies life, and this because everything involved in the pregnancy was right on track to developing a healthy human being after the egg is fertilized, and that the process had been fully started, in which to form a child that to live outside of the womb by this mother just 7 to 9 months later ((which ever would have come next)), and would have been the direct result of such a pregnancy taken to term as it should be ?
Now because of her willfulness to discard what is deemed a life that is being carefully crafted and created within her body after becoming pregnant, and then shockingly or sadly she does so on a whim or even by influence of by an outside party (the government), wherefore I feel at this point she is commiting sin and/or an act of agression also to end a perfectly healthy pregnancy in which is harboring a life within her body, and for no good reason. It is an act in which does involve the life of another human being in such a case (IMHO), where as once the egg is fertilized and the process completed to start the forming of a child within the womb, (where as by medical terms a life has been started or is being formed within the womb), and yet to next end this life or process in which is creating this life without any medical reason being involved or even a rape or incest being involved (IMHO), is the taking of a defenseless innocent life, and that is just plain and simple the truth in the matter when we all get down to it.
Now there has been many who have been fooled and influenced wrongfully by the government in this united states, wherefore by this governments participation of, it has foolishly protected or held up these acts as legal or as normal in which they have not been in many cases or even possibly as found in the lions share of the cases to speak of now, so they who were led astray will have to answer for their sin as they best can deal with it now, but the government needs to rethink what it is supporting or even holding up by law these days, because it has been duped by devilish thinking found in individuals who had become weakened in character but strengthened somehow in intelect, and had gained a high position in government in which has led this government into these areas of supporting sinfulness and acts that make our government afiliates of what may even be constituted as supporting criminal activity from a governmental standpoint in this nation.
Last edited:
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 48,455
- 18,856
- 2,250
If a DNC is performed immediately after a rape (before the egg is fertilized), then I feel that all is well with the aborting of such a potential pregnancy as to be formed out of such an evil act as would be found in forced rape or other forced acts upon an unwilling woman in which she was not a willing participant in. The key is time, and making sure that "time" is of the most important when it comes to stopping a pregnancy that may be born out of a rape or an incest situation. I see no problem with this time schedule requirment, as most if not 99.9% will use this quick time envelope to stop a potential pregnancy from happening, if rape or incest were involved. I'd say no DNC without a police report.
Again I do not wish to judge or focus on guilt or accusations of the mother. Whether or not abortion is legal she either does or does not want that baby. She either is or is not willing to intentionally end its life. Whatever her issues are, they are her own business and not any of our business. Let her work out her own mattters of conscience and leave it up to her and God to judge her. And certainly I do not presume to make the terrible choice for a woman who has been victimized by rape or incest.
The issue always with most of us prolifers is the matter of the second life, the unborn child. And even here we have a dichotomy. Can the government legitimately force the woman to live her life to support the life she helped begin? Or does she have the legal right to smoke and drink to excess, do other drugs, and otherwise live in such a way that the baby will almost certainly be born addicted and/or otherwsie severely damaged? Have you ever held a crack baby in your arms? One severely damaged with fetal alcohol syndrome? I have. And it is a heartbreaking thing. Neverthless, almost all of us would say that the government must never be given power to force anybody to live in a specific way. So on that one, we are helpless to intervene.
And would it not be more merciful to the unborn to simply not force him or her to endure that? That also has to be part of the conversation.
The bottom line again is that the ultimate answer is to return to an appreciation and reverence for life. We will continue to too often be a brutal and savage and selfish society so long as it is socially acceptable to throw away hundreds of thousands, even millions, of lives for no better reason than they are inconvenient.
The issue always with most of us prolifers is the matter of the second life, the unborn child. And even here we have a dichotomy. Can the government legitimately force the woman to live her life to support the life she helped begin? Or does she have the legal right to smoke and drink to excess, do other drugs, and otherwise live in such a way that the baby will almost certainly be born addicted and/or otherwsie severely damaged? Have you ever held a crack baby in your arms? One severely damaged with fetal alcohol syndrome? I have. And it is a heartbreaking thing. Neverthless, almost all of us would say that the government must never be given power to force anybody to live in a specific way. So on that one, we are helpless to intervene.
And would it not be more merciful to the unborn to simply not force him or her to endure that? That also has to be part of the conversation.
The bottom line again is that the ultimate answer is to return to an appreciation and reverence for life. We will continue to too often be a brutal and savage and selfish society so long as it is socially acceptable to throw away hundreds of thousands, even millions, of lives for no better reason than they are inconvenient.
Last edited:
Similar threads
