Home - List All Discussions

pro-choice doesn't mean you have to be for abortion

by: candie2122

It doesn't matter one bit if you are against abortion. Who cares? What pro-choice is all about is not letting someone else make decisions for you. You can't tell me what to do and I can't tell you what to do. Simple as that! FOR ONE: abortion would happen if you made it illegal or not, but if it was illegal it would be worse. TWO: Instead of making such a big deal about abortion, what we really need to be focusing on is educating women and teenagers better about sex to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place! It wouldn't be such a problem if we would just EDUCATE people!

reply from: yoda

What a silly, silly argument! "Prochoice", or "Proabort", or "Probabykilling" is about TAKING AWAY ALL CHOICES from your baby, FOREVER!
And YES, both murder and abortion will happen whether legal or illegal, do you want both of them legal?
Oh, and btw, you can't "focus on education" for a baby that's already DEAD from ABORTION!

reply from: candie2122

You can think what you want, but you still don't have the right to choose what someone else does with their OWN body. Regardless, it's not actually killing a baby until it has a heartbeat. What do you think stem cell research is all about?

reply from: yoda

Really? Then why do you support a woman destroying her baby's BODY????? How does she have the "right" to do that
I can tell you're totally ignorant about the very semantics you're using. Here's I'll help you out:
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby )
Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby )
iNFOPLEASE.com ba.by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html )
INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|
BIOTECH Life Sciences Dictionary: http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.mhtml?bo1=OR&word=&search_type=normal&def=baby 2. Edward's Syndrome ( Edwards' syndrome, trisomy 18, trisomy E) Definition:
A congenital disorder caused by a baby having an extra copy of chromosome 18 (three instead of the normal two). Characteristics of the disorder include a large number of different malformed organs and malformed physical features of the face and skeletal structure. In most cases, the child dies before it is born; 90% of babies born live die within a year of birth. Symptoms may be less severe when the trisomy occurs after fertilization during mitosis in the zygote (10% of cases), than when the trisomy occurs during the meiosis which produced the egg or sperm (90% of cases).
For more information, visit http://www.icondata.com/health/pedbase/files/TRISOMY2.HTM.

reply from: candie2122

there's not a damn thing you can do to make me change my mind! If there are soooooo many people against abortion, how come millions of women do it each year? hmmmm.......

reply from: bradensmommy

Oh geesh...just when we were sitting around here sittin on our thumbs we'd knew one day we'd get another pro-choicer talking crap about things she knows nothing about...
Sweetie, if you knew ANYTHING about abortion, not all are wanted. Most of them are FORCED which means a parent, a boyfriend, ect made the female get one. Most of them are done to hide crimes such as rape, incest so noone can get in trouble for them.
Making abortion illegal will not send women behind the alley with coathangers. That is a scare tactic. If you knew about abortions in the old days the docs that did illegal abortions are the ones who now do legal ones. Do your research before you start in on adult conversations.
~Out

reply from: candie2122

Lets just agree to disagree

reply from: bradensmommy

Oh trust me since you made this thread its not over by a long shot. I won't be the one who will be responding though.

reply from: candie2122

what exactly do you think you are going to do to me? I've never seen a more aggressive bunch, I thought this was about discussing certain issues like adults.....

reply from: yoda

You can lead a horse to water, but..........
"Millions" is a bit high, actually, for this country anyway..... it's about 1.2 million per year here.
Whose statement are you responding to? Who made any claims about how many people were against abortion?
And why did you dodge the issue of the definition of the word "baby"?

reply from: candie2122

I don't have to take this crap, pro-lifers disgust me! I'm outie!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Let's do educate ppl -- but abortion should still be illegal. Anyways, I don't want ppl to choose legally to hurt others -- should ppl have the legal choice to enslave others?

reply from: candie2122

I don't have to take this crap, pro-lifers disgust me! I'm outie!

reply from: yoda

Don't let the door hit you in the butt.........

reply from: candie2122

Oh, don't worry! I have one of those sexy J. Lo butts, so even if it did, it wouldn't hurt.

reply from: yoda

So, how soon can we expect to see the south end of it going north?

reply from: candie2122

You're just jealous, you're not worth arguing with.......

reply from: yoda

okay, we have an "iggy" function here, which I shall now take full advantage of

reply from: candie2122

thank you, I would like that.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Jealous? Of what? Either I have a reading problem or you just went against the fact that you wanted to debate like adults.

reply from: candie2122

It's not so much that I feel that women should have an abortion because they just don't feel like having a baby, thats why we have birth control, to prevent it in the first place. But, what about those women that end up pregnant from an abused boyfriend/husband or get raped, etc.?

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Well, less than one percent of abortions are because of rape or incest. And I think that the baby's life should be protected no matter HOW it was concieved.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Jealous? Of what? Either I have a reading problem or you just went against the fact that you wanted to debate like adults.
Let's please give her a chance to defend her position without putting her on the defensive and see if we can resolve some misconceptions, otherwise she may never really understand the basis of our position. Let's stick to the facts, they are on our side and I would like her to have an opportunity to examine them, and her position, more closely without unnecessary distractions. Thanks!
Okay, I'll try

reply from: AshMarie88

If it was possible to educate everyone, I'd be all for it.
Problem is, there are some people who are just too stupid and unwilling to learn anything. For most pro-choicers, it's all about ME ME ME ME, and they don't care about anything else. They don't care what happens to babies during an abortion. They don't know the facts and don't want to know, therefore we can't educate them!

reply from: candie2122

If I was in that situation I wouldn't want to kill the baby. The first thing I would do is see if there is a close family member or friend that could take care of the baby out of harms way. Last resort I would do an adoption.

reply from: AshMarie88

One, during an abortion, it's not the woman's body that is being torn up and mutilated.
Two, there is a heartbeat at 3 weeks, BUT that doesn't mean a thing. There are some children whose hearts may just stop and they would need to go to the hopstial to be saved. Does that mean that they are not children just because they have no heartbeat?
And of course it is KILLING before the heartbeat. Anything that is alive is able to be kiled, whether it is just one living cell or an entire human being.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why did you even come here in the first place other than to spout out pro-choice ignorance?

reply from: AshMarie88

BC isn't 100%. Many women still get pregnant while on the pill. It doesn't actually prevent pregnancy or abortions as much as you are led to believe.

reply from: AshMarie88

Someone said this earlier and it struck me deeply:
"I don't find it morally right to kill a born child, so I don't find it morally right to kill an unborn child either."

reply from: candie2122

well, I would have to agree with you. Education would help, but there are always going to be those few that don't want to learn or are too stuborn. Sadly, nothing in life can be perfect. Wouldn't it be nice if it was that simple, just to teach everyone then it would all be solved........

reply from: bradensmommy

Uh, I don't know where I read another "intelligent" response by her but I could have sworn she said that the fetus was not alive.
Sorry y'all but I had to laugh about that. I don't mind pro-choicers coming in here as long as they are mature enough to handle a grown up conversation. I'm sick of them acting like 2 year olds.

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm just allergic to ignorance myself...

reply from: bradensmommy

The week I'm in to see how "alive" this baby is
http://pregnancy.baby-gaga.com/calendar/week5

reply from: Shiprahagain

First of all, consensual sex, even with an abuser, is still consensual sex. As for rape, Rape and Incest Victims Don't Want Abortions, Say It Doesn't Help Women
Voters Debating South Dakota Abortion Ban Unaware Abortion Intensifies Victims' Trauma
Springfield, IL (September 7, 2006) -- Abortion creates more problems for rape and incest victims than it solves, according to the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA).
In an effort to gain a public voice in the contentious abortion debate, the group has written a petition to Congress and state legislatures asking for public hearings at which women who've become pregnant through sexual assault can share their stories and address the real concerns that they have faced.
"In virtually every case, those people who claim to represent our interests have never taken the time to actually listen to us or to learn about our true circumstances, needs, and concerns," they wrote. "We are deeply offended and dismayed each time our difficult circumstances are exploited for public consumption to promote the political agenda of others."
The group is particularly concerned about the widespread misconception, even among people who generally oppose abortion, that sexual assault victims generally want or benefit from abortions.
For example, a statewide survey in South Dakota recently found a proposed abortion ban there would receive overwhelming support at the polls as long as it provided an exception for rape and incest cases. Without the exception, the ban is favored by only 39 percent, with 47 percent opposing it and 14 percent undecided.
However, the WPSA members say abortion does nothing to help women pregnant through sexual assault, and in many cases is actually detrimental to them.
"In many cases, we felt pressured to abort by family members, social workers, and doctors who insisted that abortion was the 'best' solution," they wrote. "For many the abortion caused physical and emotional trauma equal to or exceeding the trauma of the sexual assault that our abortions were supposed to 'cure.'"
Dr. David Reardon, who co-authored the book Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, said the results of the South Dakota poll results reflect voters' desire to spare women the hardships often associated with giving birth to a child conceived in sexual assault.
"Typically, most people have accepted the premise that sexual assault victims not only want abortions but will actually benefit from them," said Reardon, a leading researcher on post-abortion issues and director of the Elliot Institute. "They assume abortion will help victims put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the problems that might arise with giving birth to the child--who is often described as the 'rapist's child' rather than the woman's child."
But the only two published studies that have actually tracked the choices and experiences of women who have become pregnant after rape or incest, Reardon said, actually lead to the opposite conclusions. Remarkably, both studies found that approximately 70 percent of pregnant rape victims chose to give birth rather than have abortions, even though abortion was readily available.
"Prior to becoming pregnant, many of these woman would have said that they would have an abortion if they became pregnant through rape." said Reardon. "But after the rape, many change their minds because they have a heightened concern about abuse and trauma. They want to break the cycle of violence. Many also sense that an abortion will only add to their emotional suffering."
Furthermore, in the Elliot Institute's survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest, nearly 80 percent of the woman who had abortions said that they strongly regretted the abortion, with most saying it had caused far more harm than good in their lives. Among women who gave birth to their children, the consensus against abortion was even stronger.
Of the women who reported having abortions, most reported feeling pressured by family members or health care workers to undergo abortions.
"This was especially the case for those who became pregnant through incest," Reardon said. "in almost every case, the abortion was chosen by the girl's parents or tragically, by the perpetrator himself. In some cases the abortion was used to cover up the incest and the girl was returned to the same abusive situation to be victimized again."
According to Reardon, the problem of coerced abortions is a national epidemic. A recent survey found that 64 percent of women who report a history of abortion also report feeling pressured by others to have abortions. Reardon said the percentage is likely higher for those who become pregnant through sexual assault.
In one case described in Victims and Victors, a woman who was impregnated by her father at the age of 15 wrote of being taken to the hospital, where her father demanded that an abortion be performed. When she refused, she was held down by the nurses and drugged before being subjected to the abortion.
"I grieve every day for my daughter," wrote the woman, who asked that her name be concealed to protect her privacy. "I have struggled every day to forget the abuse and the abortion. I can do neither. . . . The trauma of the rape and abuse was only intensified by the abortion."
Abortion, Reardon said, "gives molesters the means to cover up their crime and the opportunity to repeat it, subjecting the victims to repeated ongoing abuse as well as the additional trauma of an unwanted abortion."
More than a dozen studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals in the past several years have documented psychological problems among women who have had abortions, including higher rates of depression, substance abuse, psychiatric problems, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, sleep disorders, and other difficulties.
"Many of these studies indicate that women with a history of trauma are even more likely to experience traumatic reactions following an abortion," Reardon said. "Sexual assault victims are not immune to post-abortion trauma. Indeed, the best evidence suggests that they may be at the greatest risk of severe reactions to abortion."
But if sexual assault victims aren't offered abortions, what should be the response from those around them?
"The women in our survey said repeatedly that what they needed was time and support to come to terms with the assault and the resulting pregnancy," Reardon said. "While none proposed that there are any easy solutions, well over 80 percent believed that abortion clearly made their problems worse."
For Kathleen DeZeeuw, who raised her son after becoming pregnant through rape at the age of 16, the solution begins with attentive listening. She says abortion advocates have used the issue of sexual assault pregnancy to push for abortion without considering the real needs of the women involved.
"I feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," she wrote in Victims and Victors. "I feel we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've never been asked to tell our side of the story."
"Women who have gone through the trauma of rape or incest need to be counseled, cared for, and listened to," she added. "A woman is most vulnerable at a time such as this and doesn't need to be pounced on by yet another act of violence. She needs someone to truly listen to her, care for her, and give her time to heal."

reply from: Shiprahagain

Also Candie, I posted a link w/ medical sources that says life begins at conception, if you believe it happens at heartbeat post medical sources. Furthermore, many babies are killed after they have a heartbeat (at 3 weeks). In fact, abortion is legal all 9 mos of pregnancy. If you think abortion isn't, or isn't often, post sources.

reply from: coco

education is key, and you are right it NEVER will go away!!! But it does stop a life and many need to relize that it is not just a "product" "it" is the begining of a new life and should not be discarded!!

reply from: Ayame

A baby has a heartbeat between 1-4 weeks of conception. What do you say to that? And pro-choice IS pro-abortion. If you are pro-"choice" then why not be pro-choice about the unborn fetus? What choice does the baby have? It didn't get to choose weither or not it wanted to LIVE. Aren't you glad your mother decided to have YOU? If you are pro giving females a choice of abortion, then you are pro-baby killing.

reply from: Ayame

Oh and no one FORCES a female to have sex either, unless it's rape. And you are taught that birth control isn't 100% effective. To put it simply, if you don't want a baby, then don't have sex. You decided to have sex, you risk it, you can't push off the blame onto an unborn child because YOU decided to have sex.

reply from: Florestella

I completely agree. Nobody likes abortion. Nobody gets pregnant just to have an abortion. If people really want to stop abortion, they would stop kicking and screaming about it and become proactive about it, like educating our teens about proper birth control and condoms, not preventing it totally. America is the only industrialized country that has the highest amount of abortions, it's so sad. Other industrialized countries that have really low abortions have extensive sex-education programs. Sure we should teach abstinence as well, but that shouldn't be all we teach. The statistics say it all. Thank goodness Congress is now in the hands of Democrats; hopefully now America can take a realistic stance on abortion, which is EDUCATION and PREVENTION.

reply from: Florestella

Unless it's rape? I'm curious now, you have so much compassion for the unborn, and what of the brutally raped victim?

reply from: Ayame

I know I am probably going to get jumped on for this, but well, I might as well state my opinion.
Firstly, I would never abort from a rape. I cannot blame the baby for something he/she didn't so. But I cannot force another to carry a child that was concieved from not even consenting to sex. I mean honestly, forcing my opinion on another isn't right. They didn't want to have sex, they didn't decide that they wanted a baby with this person, (obviously by the fact that they were raped.)

reply from: coco

I certainly am not without compassion for the victims of any act of violence, including rape and induced abortion, but I do not subscribe to the belief that being a victim of one entitles a person to commit the other. I do not see the logic in contending that people should not be allowed to intentionally kill other innocent human beings unless they have been raped. We do not allow victims of other forms of violence to kill innocent human beings just because of their status as victims, and we do not allow rape victims to kill their assailants after the fact, so why should we allow them to kill their innocent children?
CP I think the reason that rape is an exception because the pregnancy is tramatic for the mother! Psychologicly the mother is in a state of fear and shock after the rape has occured, and thrown in the mix is the CRAZY pregnancy homrmones! I dont condone it but I have NEVER been in that situation so I would not know, again this is my THEORY on why rape victums abort!!!

reply from: NewPoster1

I know I am probably going to get jumped on for this, but well, I might as well state my opinion.
Firstly, I would never abort from a rape. I cannot blame the baby for something he/she didn't so. But I cannot force another to carry a child that was concieved from not even consenting to sex. I mean honestly, forcing my opinion on another isn't right. They didn't want to have sex, they didn't decide that they wanted a baby with this person, (obviously by the fact that they were raped.)
There seems to be a discrepancy between this post and an earlier one you made...
I would refuse to sign it, and in the end if she didn't want the child, I'd adopt the baby, or we could look for a proper family to take care of the baby. And this would be if she was underage. Overage there is nothing I can do because she makes that choice, not me.
So which is it? Is it acceptable to force impregnated rape victims to remain pregnant against their will or not?

reply from: AshMarie88

I certainly am not without compassion for the victims of any act of violence, including rape and induced abortion, but I do not subscribe to the belief that being a victim of one entitles a person to commit the other. I do not see the logic in contending that people should not be allowed to intentionally kill other innocent human beings unless they have been raped. We do not allow victims of other forms of violence to kill innocent human beings just because of their status as victims, and we do not allow rape victims to kill their assailants after the fact, so why should we allow them to kill their innocent children?
CP said it all! This is my opinion as well.

reply from: AshMarie88

If a woman is entitled to killing her unborn child conceived from rape, why isn't she entitled to killing her born child who was conceived from rape or conceived from a loving marriage, but whose father raped his/her mother AFTER he/she was born? After all, the mom will suffer greatly and with a child around, it will make it even harder... Better get rid of the problem.
However, think about it in a different perspective... Let's focusing on the woman's feelings for just one minute and put all our attention on the baby. The baby was completely innocent of any crime and is as defenseless now as the woman was when she was raped. Yet that baby is still killed, even tho it didn't do anything to hurt anyone. It didn't ask to be created, and it's STILL protected under the right to life. So, the mom went thru a traumatic experience, which is horrible, but will making abortion okay in that circumstance REALLY be the right thing to do? Should we really punish a child for what a criminal has done? Or should we turn away from death and try and put a positive on what has already been a negative? I'm not saying it's easy but it isn't the end.
9 months really isn't that long if you are giving someone their own life. An entire life versus a couple months in the womb and killed, death for eternity. Which is the better option?

reply from: coco

I certainly am not without compassion for the victims of any act of violence, including rape and induced abortion, but I do not subscribe to the belief that being a victim of one entitles a person to commit the other. I do not see the logic in contending that people should not be allowed to intentionally kill other innocent human beings unless they have been raped. We do not allow victims of other forms of violence to kill innocent human beings just because of their status as victims, and we do not allow rape victims to kill their assailants after the fact, so why should we allow them to kill their innocent children?
CP I think the reason that rape is an exception because the pregnancy is tramatic for the mother! Psychologicly the mother is in a state of fear and shock after the rape has occured, and thrown in the mix is the CRAZY pregnancy homrmones! I dont condone it but I have NEVER been in that situation so I would not know, again this is my THEORY on why rape victums abort!!!
Coco,
If the "traumatic" nature of pregnancy is the reason you would allow induced abortion in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, wouldn't you logically have to allow all abortions? The circumstances under which conception occurs do not affect the pregnancy itself, and the emotional trauma of having been raped is not erased by abortion. Rape is a violent crime and is often very traumatic, regardless of whether the victim becomes pregnant or not, and aborting a pregnancy which resulted from rape can not be shown to reduce the emotional trauma of that experience. The fact is that studies show the opposite is true. Shiprah has posted the evidence of this several times on this forum.
I dont beleive in induced abortion, what I was stating My personal THEORY as why women would have abortions. I am able to see diffrent sides of a situation and I am NOT condoning ANY abortions!

reply from: coco

I understand, I just feel that it is appropriate to refute all justifications for abortion, even supposedly "theoretical" ones. My post. while certainly a response to yours, was not necessarily directed at you personally. That is to say that my argument was directed at anyone who subscribes to your "theoretical" justification, regardless of whether you, personally, believe it is valid or not.
OH o.k I thought you were insinuating that I agree with this theory, I see your point!!

reply from: galen

OK candie... I'm going to answer your Rape/ incest question with the answer I gave my son yesterday....
If you are raped and go tho the hospital you can recieve medication to stop the pregnancy from occuring. ( if you do not believe in chemical Bc then you can refuse this step). I also sat down with him and had a very frank discussion with him about his own conception. You see my son was the product of rape. He did not know this before yesterday. i felt that at his age (16), he needed to know that it was not just the rape of the mother that had to be considered but the life of the child she already had inside her.
i discussed with him the issues i had to deal with, and how many people told me i was nuts to have kept him. i asked him if his life was worth living? he said that it most certainly was ( with the indignation of a teenager).
you see we are all given choices... in this day and age no one really has the right to say to anyone else that they are inconvientent or do not have the same rights as the rest of us. We all make choices in life... if you are raped then you have the choice to go seek medical attention or not. If you choose not to then you also have given any potential child the rights to the rest of thier life. You can not go back on that type of choice.
Mary

reply from: candie2122

WOW! Very well said Florestella! I would definitely have to agree with you about educating teens. Obviously it wouldn't stop pregnancies from happening, but it would really help.

reply from: cali1981

I know I am probably going to get jumped on for this, but well, I might as well state my opinion.
Firstly, I would never abort from a rape. I cannot blame the baby for something he/she didn't so. But I cannot force another to carry a child that was concieved from not even consenting to sex. I mean honestly, forcing my opinion on another isn't right. They didn't want to have sex, they didn't decide that they wanted a baby with this person, (obviously by the fact that they were raped.)
There seems to be a discrepancy between this post and an earlier one you made...
I would refuse to sign it, and in the end if she didn't want the child, I'd adopt the baby, or we could look for a proper family to take care of the baby. And this would be if she was underage. Overage there is nothing I can do because she makes that choice, not me.
So which is it? Is it acceptable to force impregnated rape victims to remain pregnant against their will or not?
NP, since you're on the forum and all, how about responding to the slew of questions and challenges that you've dodged in recent weeks? I even created a thread listing a sampling of them, to help you get started.

reply from: Florestella

I could say many things to refute your answer. For example, I could say aborting an unborn child is acceptable, because the baby isn't viable once outside the mother's nourishing womb. I could also say that a born baby is an individual human being, relying only on social love (not the mother's body) and support for people to feed it, clothe it, etc, and that killing that baby, therefore, is morally and legally unacceptable.
I could also paraphrase Judith Jarvis Thompson. Imagine this: a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle. To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. (http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#murder)

But we all know that we'd be talking past each other. Right now, you probably didn't even fully read the preceding paragraph. Right now, you are probably hyperventilating with anger, thinking "she is so wrong, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about." You most likely didn't bother to put yourself in a situation like that. You have your moral beliefs so ingrained in yourself, that you are absolutely callous to other people's situations and dilemmas (except for those, of course, of the unborn).
I am not going to lie and say I understand your position; I don't. But I will not judge you. You have every right to believe whatever it is what you want. But remember: do not judge someone before you have walked a mile in their shoes. I hope you are never raped or forced to face an unintended pregnancy. I mean that.

reply from: AshMarie88

A woman's DNA is different than her child's DNA. If the child had the exact same DNA, then maybe the child is a woman's body part.
And a hair follicle isn't a human being.
And I sure hope you are never forcefully held down and ripped into tiny little peices slowly with a metal object while you are still alive. I mean that.

reply from: Florestella

The uniqueness of DNA from a zygote and it's mother does not make it a different person. This is especially evident with identical twins. They share the exact same DNA. Is one more of a human being than another? Likewise, twins are not the exact same person. Just think about that.
And every cell in your body has the potential to become a human being. Everytime you scratch your nose, you're committing a holocaust of potential human lives. Maybe you should rally to save skin cells as well.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

But human cells aren't human. It's only when a human egg meets a human sperm that a human life is created.

reply from: holopaw

Does killing the baby undo the rape?

reply from: cali1981

CP responded quite well to this post, but I find it difficult not to throw my two cents in, so I'm going to respond with a few ideas of my own.
WHY does a lack of viability make the killing acceptable? No pro-choicer has ever been able to explain to me how these two things are connected.
Why do you bring up the fact that a born baby is an "individual" human being? Do you contend that an unborn baby is NOT an "individual" human being?
CP refuted this quite well, but I have another important point to bring up: The "violinist" scenario is about someone who is asked to provide an extraordinary, non-universal measure to save another's life. In contrast, gestation within one's mother is an absolutely universal requirement for every single human being to survive. To deny this to a child would be the same as denying him/her food and water.
First of all, to say that an unborn baby is a "potential" or "nonexisting" person is simply false. That baby exists, period. It may be accurate to say that such a baby is a "potential" firefighter or schoolteacher, because he/she is not those things YET, but MAY become them. However, the baby is ALREADY a human being - there is nothing "potential" about it.
Second of all, the child is only a zygote for a VERY short time - and its small size (whether "single-cell" or grown to an inch or two long) does not make it any less of a human being. My daughter is only two feet tall, but that doesn't make her any less of a human being than I am. The fact that a hair follicle contains DNA does not support your denials. Any PART of a human, including hair, is going to contain DNA. The only relevant question is whether the unborn child is PART of his/her mother - and the answer is, quite simply, no.
The condition of pregnancy, not the child herself or himself, is what may present a threat to the mother's life in a TINY minority of pregnancy cases. No pro-lifer advocates measures that prevent a woman from doing whatever is necessary to protect her life; we simply recognize that it is never necessary to intentionally kill a child to do so. Since it is the state of being pregnant - the relationship between the mom and child - which may cause the problem, it is the relationship between mom and child which must be ended if there is a threat to the mother's life. That can always be done with the intent to save both lives (every time a child is born alive, the pregnancy relationship between the mom and child is ended as well!).
Do you know how such organizations arrive at statistics like this? In reality, we may NEVER know which one is more dangerous. When a woman dies from an abortion-related complication, the complication nearly always arises some time after she has been to the abortion clinic, and at hospitals her cause of death is recorded as the presenting problem (uterine tear, sepsis, etc.), NOT as "abortion." It is easy, therefore, to miscount abortion-related deaths as childbirth-related deaths. An organization called Life Dynamics, on a tiny budget and only able to do a small amount of research, was easily able to uncover some instances of this happening. It is also reasonable to believe, given how many people profit from the abortion industry, that some would even have an interest in deliberately leaving some death certificates ambiguous or falsifying them in order to be counted as making abortion look safer. It is foolish for anyone to claim authoritatively that one or the other is safer given the fact that no one knows just how many deaths have been counted inaccurately. However, given what you know about both procedures (childbirth involving the uterus naturally opening and preparing itself for the child to slide out, abortion involving invading the uterus prematurely with sharp instruments in order to rip the child apart), which do you think seems safer?
The bottom line is that any potential dangers of childbirth do not justify deliberately killing the child. In today's world of highly advanced medicine, there are many techniques that can be used to deliver a child with excellent chances for the survival of both mother and baby. And of course, every abortion results in a dead baby...so there will always be far more deaths from that procedure!

reply from: cali1981

Actually, this isn't true. Uniqueness ALWAYS certifies that one is a different person. In the case of two entities with the same DNA (like twins), FURTHER tests must be employed to determine if they are different people. But if the DNA is unique, then no further testing is needed. Thus, your "twins" example does not support this contention.
The only relevant question here is whether or not a mother and her unborn child are different people. They will always have different DNA (a mother cannot conceive her own twin), so the answer will always be "yes."
Ummm....no, it doesn't.
I don't know what else to say to such an obviously false statement.

reply from: Florestella

Human cells aren't human? You've got to be joking. Of course they're human; they contain human DNA and carry metabolic process that are vital to the functioning of the human being. They're human. I'm guessing you meant "human being"?? I'm sorry for the confusion, but I make clear distinctions between 'human' and 'human being'. Ok, this paragraph sounds like a tongue-twister now...

reply from: faithman

A born child is totally dependant, and is nonviable if left in a field to fend for themselves. The womb child has a heart beat. The womb child has brain waves. the womb child responds to touch and sound. The womb child responds to the voice of his/her mother, just like they will when born. Why does the womb get to be a free kill zone, when in many ways a born child is a bigger inconvienance? But then if you kill while still hidden in the womb, you wont have to face that now will you?

reply from: Florestella

Both you and CP have some very good, thought-provoking points. As I am new to this forum, I still can't figure out how you folks quote people in your replies...would make this so much easier
But anyway, where to start. Ok. You asked "WHY does a lack of viability make the killing acceptable? No pro-choicer has ever been able to explain to me how these two things are connected. "
My take on that is that it is not an independent individual. But of couse, you refute that, because you base physical independence solely on differences in DNA. But as I've said previously, you do your cause a disservice because being a human being is more than just DNA ( I used the identical twin example, I think you read it). So, that leads me to believe that your whole theory on human beings is "If you're human, then you must be a person".
You lead others to assume then, that the physical dependence of the mother shouldn't be used to justify abortion. But you have just conceded your point. Most pro-lifers are against RU-486. Why? Because it deprives the zygote of the uterus' nutrient-rich lining, ending it's existence. Your own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.
You also asked "Why do you bring up the fact that a born baby is an "individual" human being? Do you contend that an unborn baby is NOT an "individual" human being?"
Yes, I do contend that an unborn baby is NOT an "individual" human being (genetically, it's individual, not physically). Do I believe that just because it isn't an individual human being, that it doesn't deserve rights? Absolutely not. It must be given full human rights, and many pro-choicers also do a great disservice to their cause when they say anything otherwise. The greatest difference that lies between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the question of which one of these beings (the fetus or mother) hold the upper hand as far as these "rights" are concerned.
I simply believe that you cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other-and thus they don't have equal rights.
I have to cut this short but I will definately continue later.

reply from: faithman

A born child is totally dependant, and is nonviable if left in a field to fend for themselves. The womb child has a heart beat. The womb child has brain waves. the womb child responds to touch and sound. The womb child responds to the voice of his/her mother, just like they will when born. Why does the womb get to be a free kill zone, when in many ways a born child is a bigger inconvienance? But then if you kill while still hidden in the womb, you wont have to face that now will you?

reply from: AshMarie88

Wow, I didn't know my cells could ever become people. *rolls eyes*
Give me a break...

reply from: Florestella

Again, good points. I want to add that this is first forum where I am not arguing uselessly with children, but with adults who really like to discuss issues.
True, a born child is totally dependent on the mother and father for love, food, and other general care, and if left to fend for themselves, could very well die. But as I was discussing with CP, there are big differences between physical and social dependence. A fetus depends completely on the mother for oxygen and nutrients. Because of this, the mother and fetus are symbiotically linked: anything goes wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. Anything goes wrong with the mother, affects the fetus. The mother's existence however, is not dependent on the fetus. The fetus depends solely and completely for the mother's body for existence. That very fact puts the fetus at the mercy of the mother, for better or for worse.

reply from: Florestella

Given our recent advances in genetic engineering, virtually every cell in the human body has the capability to become a fully developed human being. But that is a whole a whole different forum topic, which I'm guessing would fall under "embryonic stem cell research".

reply from: Florestella

"Symbiosis" is an incredibly loose term that can very well be applied to a relationship between different species, but not always. Symbiosis simply means "living together", which is what is occurring during pregnancy. Symbiosis is a term that is applied not only in biology, but in psychology as well, so to say it applies only to different species is an incredibly narrow definition.

reply from: AshMarie88

Ok, you sort of have a point there, but I don't think that would fall under embryonic stem cell research. Sounds more like cloning.

reply from: faithman

Ok, you sort of have a point there, but I don't think that would fall under embryonic stem cell research. Sounds more like cloning.
cloning still requirers a human egg to inject gene material. I do not think they are cloning from a single cell yet.

reply from: Florestella

Given our recent advances in genetic engineering, virtually every cell in your body can become a potential human being.

reply from: Florestella

sym?bi?o?sis? /?s?mbi?o?s?s, -ba?-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-bee-oh-sis, -bahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
- noun, plural -ses /-siz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. Biology. a. the living together of two dissimilar organisms, as in mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, or parasitism.
b. (formerly) mutualism (def. 1).

2. Psychiatry. a relationship between two people in which each person is dependent upon and receives reinforcement, whether beneficial or detrimental, from the other.
3. Psychoanalysis. the relationship between an infant and its mother in which the infant is dependent on the mother both physically and emotionally.
4. any interdependent or mutually beneficial relationship between two persons, groups, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1615 - 25; < Gk symbí?sis, equiv. to sym- sym- + bi? (var. s. of bioûn to live) + -sis -sis]

reply from: LetFreedomRing

The cells on your nose aren't human, that's what I meant. I repeat, ONLY when a HUMAN sperm meets a HUMAN egg, a HUMAN BEING is made and deserves the right to life.

reply from: NalaP

This is where one needs to distinguish potential human being from an indvidual human being. A potential human being is just that, potential (such as a female's eggs or a male's sperm). So if genetic engineering could possibly produce an individual human being from any cell in a human's body, then the cell's used would be considered as potential human beings, also. And the product of genetically engineering these cells would be an individual human being, not a potential human being.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Symbiosis is a heterospecific relationship. Pregnancy is homospecific.
Florestella, you say a baby is a genetic yet not physical individual being -- how do you explain conjoined twins?
Pro-choicers often feel that one person, the mother or baby, must hold more rights than the other. In reality they hold exactly the same rights -- they each have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, the right to life is the most important of these b/c without it the other two rights cannot exist. The argument you make is the same one the judges in the Dred Scott case made -- that either the owner or slave could have rights but not both. They said that the person who had rights must be the owner -- his right to property overuled Dred's right to freedom, even though Dred's loss of freedom was a greater loss than his owner's loss of property would have been. This case is considered wrong b/c without the right to liberty there is no right to property. In abortion, the baby's loss of life is a greater loss than the mom's right to "the pursuit of happiness for a nine month period." Furthermore, without a right to life there is no right to liberty or happiness. So both the baby and mom have equal rights, the rights to life.
As for DNA - twins do not have the exact same DNA - hence different fingerprints.
As for the violinist thing -- Unstringing the Violinist


Gregory Koukl
Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument is one of the most compelling ever offered in favor of abortion on demand, but it's deeply flawed. Here's where it goes wrong.
I remember exactly where I was the first time I heard Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument. I was driving south on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles listening to a radio talk-show. It shook me up so much I almost had to pull over.
Not only was the argument compelling, but Thompson made a stunning concession when she acknowledged the full personhood of the unborn. Having conceded what pro-lifers were trying to prove, she short-circuited their argument from the outset.
My first impulse was to throw in the towel. The argument couldn't be answered, I thought. This is often the case with carefully worded philosophical treatments. At first glance they appear compelling. On closer inspection, though, the flaws begin to show. In this instance, the problems with Thompson's argument are fatal.
The Violinist Argument
The details of Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument are important, so I will quote her illustration in full. Entitled "A Defense of Abortion," it first appeared in 1971 in the Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.[1]
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you - we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Judith Jarvis Thompson correctly shows that an additional step is needed to bridge the gap between the premise that the unborn is a person and the conclusion that killing the unborn child is always wrong. What's needed is the additional premise that taking the life of a person is always wrong. Killing, however, is sometimes permissible, most notably in self-defense.
The reasoning in the violinist illustration is very tight. Thompson accurately represents the pro-life position, and then offers a scenario for us to consider. The analysis employs two powerful techniques of argumentation: an example that appeals to moral intuition followed by a logical slippery slope.
The logical slippery slope works like this. When one thing is immoral, and a second is logically similar in a morally relevant way, the moral quality of the one "slips over" into the other. For example, murder is immoral, and some think capital punishment is similar enough to murder to make capital punishment immoral too.
Thompson is counting on a certain moral intuition - our sense of justice - rising to the surface when we consider the plight of the kidnapped woman used as a host against her will to support the life of a stranger.
She then asks us to consider if having an abortion is a meaningful parallel to unplugging the violinist. Both circumstances catch the woman by surprise. Both the violinist and the unborn child are attached to her body, which both need in order to survive. Both will release her in nine months.
Thompson's view is that disconnecting the violinist is morally justified even though he'll die, and there seems to be merit to this appeal. To stay connected would be heroic - "a great kindness," in her words - but, like all acts of heroism, it is voluntary and not morally required.[3] If that's the case, then it's moral to abort a child, even if he or she is a fully human person, just like the violinist. If the first is morally acceptable (unplugging the violinist), and if the second (having an abortion) is similar to the first in a relevant way, then the second should be acceptable also.
A recent book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent,[4] uses the same approach. Author Eileen McDonagh points out that if a woman's liberty is being threatened in some fashion - if she is being attacked, raped, or kidnapped - then the law gives her the latitude to use lethal force to repel her attacker.
Pregnancy, McDonagh argues, is this kind of situation. "If a woman has the right to defend herself against a rapist, she also should be able to use deadly force to expel a fetus," she writes.[5] In pregnancy, a woman is being attacked by another human being - from the inside, not from the outside. Therefore, she has the moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder.
It does seem obvious that a woman ought to be allowed to protect herself from an attacker and use lethal force to do so, if necessary. If this is true, then we must concede the legitimacy of abortion, which, McDonagh claims, is parallel in a relevant way.
Parallels that Aren't Parallel
The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.
Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.
First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction.
Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child - the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.
A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.
Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.
Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.
The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.
This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson's illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?
Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.
If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.
Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.
In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.
The simple fact is, in a civilized society no one has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her own body. Liberty unfettered by morality is the operative rule of anarchy, not civilization. At any given moment, each of us is constrained by hundreds of laws reflecting our moral responsibilities to our community. The most primal of those rules is the obligation of a mother to her helpless child. This is one of the reasons the public outcry against Susan Smith was so intense.
Susan Smith Morality
Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake.
Smith's crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn't Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson's and McDonagh's logic? These children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith's life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense.
Last year, a couple in New York was arrested when authorities learned they took a 10-day vacation to Florida and left their young children behind to fend for themselves. If McDonagh's and Thompson's arguments work, these parents should be released from jail because they bear no more obligation towards their own children than they do to strangers across town or burglars who break into their house. Those children were invading their privacy, trespassing in their home, stealing their food.
This argument is frightening for two reasons. First, it must reject the notion of parental responsibility in order to succeed. Second, in spite of that weakness, people in high places think it's compelling. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, has admitted that Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed, and instead quoted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in support of abortion. Women get pregnant, she argued, men don't. Abortion gives women a shot at equality. She then cited Thompson for support.
The responsibility a mother has toward her child supersedes any claim she has to personal liberty. If it doesn't, if Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments succeed, then release Susan Smith. Release the deadbeat Florida tourists. If parenthood is an act of heroism, if mothers have no moral obligation to the children they bear, if child-rearing is a burden "above and beyond the call of duty," then no child is safe, in the womb or out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47.
[2] Note the appeal to moral intuition here.
[3] Philosophers call heroic efforts "supererogatory acts," behavior that is not obligatory, but is praiseworthy if done, like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, sacrificing his life to protect his comrades.
[4] Eileen McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent (New York, Oxford University Press, 1996).
[5] Quoted in Nat Hentoff, "The Tiny, Voiceless Enemy Within," Los Angeles Times, 2/3/97, B-5.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

For someone who claimed she wouldn't judge us -- it's funny how you said Right now, you probably didn't even fully read the preceding paragraph. Right now, you are probably hyperventilating with anger, thinking "she is so wrong, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about." You most likely didn't bother to put yourself in a situation like that. You have your moral beliefs so ingrained in yourself, that you are absolutely callous to other people's situations and dilemmas (except for those, of course, of the unborn). Was that not a judgement?
The WHO is a pro-choice organization -- if you want to quote sources on maternal injury please use a neutral source.
You also ask about rape
Rape and Incest Victims Don't Want Abortions, Say It Doesn't Help Women
Voters Debating South Dakota Abortion Ban Unaware Abortion Intensifies Victims' Trauma
Springfield, IL (September 7, 2006) -- Abortion creates more problems for rape and incest victims than it solves, according to the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA).
In an effort to gain a public voice in the contentious abortion debate, the group has written a petition to Congress and state legislatures asking for public hearings at which women who've become pregnant through sexual assault can share their stories and address the real concerns that they have faced.
"In virtually every case, those people who claim to represent our interests have never taken the time to actually listen to us or to learn about our true circumstances, needs, and concerns," they wrote. "We are deeply offended and dismayed each time our difficult circumstances are exploited for public consumption to promote the political agenda of others."
The group is particularly concerned about the widespread misconception, even among people who generally oppose abortion, that sexual assault victims generally want or benefit from abortions.
For example, a statewide survey in South Dakota recently found a proposed abortion ban there would receive overwhelming support at the polls as long as it provided an exception for rape and incest cases. Without the exception, the ban is favored by only 39 percent, with 47 percent opposing it and 14 percent undecided.
However, the WPSA members say abortion does nothing to help women pregnant through sexual assault, and in many cases is actually detrimental to them.
"In many cases, we felt pressured to abort by family members, social workers, and doctors who insisted that abortion was the 'best' solution," they wrote. "For many the abortion caused physical and emotional trauma equal to or exceeding the trauma of the sexual assault that our abortions were supposed to 'cure.'"
Dr. David Reardon, who co-authored the book Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, said the results of the South Dakota poll results reflect voters' desire to spare women the hardships often associated with giving birth to a child conceived in sexual assault.
"Typically, most people have accepted the premise that sexual assault victims not only want abortions but will actually benefit from them," said Reardon, a leading researcher on post-abortion issues and director of the Elliot Institute. "They assume abortion will help victims put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the problems that might arise with giving birth to the child--who is often described as the 'rapist's child' rather than the woman's child."
But the only two published studies that have actually tracked the choices and experiences of women who have become pregnant after rape or incest, Reardon said, actually lead to the opposite conclusions. Remarkably, both studies found that approximately 70 percent of pregnant rape victims chose to give birth rather than have abortions, even though abortion was readily available.
"Prior to becoming pregnant, many of these woman would have said that they would have an abortion if they became pregnant through rape." said Reardon. "But after the rape, many change their minds because they have a heightened concern about abuse and trauma. They want to break the cycle of violence. Many also sense that an abortion will only add to their emotional suffering."
Furthermore, in the Elliot Institute's survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest, nearly 80 percent of the woman who had abortions said that they strongly regretted the abortion, with most saying it had caused far more harm than good in their lives. Among women who gave birth to their children, the consensus against abortion was even stronger.
Of the women who reported having abortions, most reported feeling pressured by family members or health care workers to undergo abortions.
"This was especially the case for those who became pregnant through incest," Reardon said. "in almost every case, the abortion was chosen by the girl's parents or tragically, by the perpetrator himself. In some cases the abortion was used to cover up the incest and the girl was returned to the same abusive situation to be victimized again."
According to Reardon, the problem of coerced abortions is a national epidemic. A recent survey found that 64 percent of women who report a history of abortion also report feeling pressured by others to have abortions. Reardon said the percentage is likely higher for those who become pregnant through sexual assault.
In one case described in Victims and Victors, a woman who was impregnated by her father at the age of 15 wrote of being taken to the hospital, where her father demanded that an abortion be performed. When she refused, she was held down by the nurses and drugged before being subjected to the abortion.
"I grieve every day for my daughter," wrote the woman, who asked that her name be concealed to protect her privacy. "I have struggled every day to forget the abuse and the abortion. I can do neither. . . . The trauma of the rape and abuse was only intensified by the abortion."
Abortion, Reardon said, "gives molesters the means to cover up their crime and the opportunity to repeat it, subjecting the victims to repeated ongoing abuse as well as the additional trauma of an unwanted abortion."
More than a dozen studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals in the past several years have documented psychological problems among women who have had abortions, including higher rates of depression, substance abuse, psychiatric problems, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, sleep disorders, and other difficulties.
"Many of these studies indicate that women with a history of trauma are even more likely to experience traumatic reactions following an abortion," Reardon said. "Sexual assault victims are not immune to post-abortion trauma. Indeed, the best evidence suggests that they may be at the greatest risk of severe reactions to abortion."
But if sexual assault victims aren't offered abortions, what should be the response from those around them?
"The women in our survey said repeatedly that what they needed was time and support to come to terms with the assault and the resulting pregnancy," Reardon said. "While none proposed that there are any easy solutions, well over 80 percent believed that abortion clearly made their problems worse."
For Kathleen DeZeeuw, who raised her son after becoming pregnant through rape at the age of 16, the solution begins with attentive listening. She says abortion advocates have used the issue of sexual assault pregnancy to push for abortion without considering the real needs of the women involved.
"I feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," she wrote in Victims and Victors. "I feel we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've never been asked to tell our side of the story."
"Women who have gone through the trauma of rape or incest need to be counseled, cared for, and listened to," she added. "A woman is most vulnerable at a time such as this and doesn't need to be pounced on by yet another act of violence. She needs someone to truly listen to her, care for her, and give her time to heal."
I agree that we should educate teens about sex -- but that doesn't mean it needs to be sex-ed. Abstinence works. Have you seen the FRC study? http://www.frc.org/?i=WU03D11 Prolifers are proactive in our efforts before conception, during pregnancy, after birth, and after abortion -- we offer housing, info, healthcare, resources, counseling -- and not b/c we profit from it. Check out the resources we offer -- just a hint of them
http://www.teenbreaks.com/ http://blackgenocide.org/ http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/ http://hsl.mcmaster.ca/tomflem/prolife.html
However, I don't want low abortions, I want NO abortions. I speak as a teen -- if you're old enough for sex you are old enough for pregnancy.

P.S. To quote, just hit the quote button beneath the message of what you want to quote.
Welcome to the forum!

reply from: Ayame

I know I am probably going to get jumped on for this, but well, I might as well state my opinion.
Firstly, I would never abort from a rape. I cannot blame the baby for something he/she didn't so. But I cannot force another to carry a child that was concieved from not even consenting to sex. I mean honestly, forcing my opinion on another isn't right. They didn't want to have sex, they didn't decide that they wanted a baby with this person, (obviously by the fact that they were raped.)
There seems to be a discrepancy between this post and an earlier one you made...
I would refuse to sign it, and in the end if she didn't want the child, I'd adopt the baby, or we could look for a proper family to take care of the baby. And this would be if she was underage. Overage there is nothing I can do because she makes that choice, not me.
So which is it? Is it acceptable to force impregnated rape victims to remain pregnant against their will or not?
You asked if I would on my own daughter. In the sense that others, I can't do a thing about that. But for my daughter, no, I wouldn't sign the papers.

reply from: NewPoster1

You could pass a law criminalizing rape-precipitated abortions.
So let me get this straight, you believe that rape victims have the right to terminate a rape-induced pregnancy, but you simultaneously believe that the parents of a rape victim should be allowed to force her to remain rape-induced pregnant against her will?
Doesn't this logic equally apply to your daughter?
Forcing a rape victim to remain rape-induced pregnant against her will is either perfectly acceptable or it's a gross violation of her rights. You can't logically say it's a gross violation of her rights, unless it's your daughter, in which case it's suddenly perfectly acceptable.

reply from: Ayame

This is my decision, if her father signs the papers, that is his decision. I'm saying I wouldn't. Her father can always make that decision. But I don't see where I can't adopt her child, because that child shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes that the father made.
My daughter is a totally different situation, because she is my daughter. If she is under the age of consent, then she doesn't entirely understand the whole situation.
I can say what I like, for others, I can't force them, but I'd refuse to sign for my own child. Do you not read what I type? I really don't care if you think it isn't logical, it is in the sense that I wouldn't sign the papers. She still has a father. And if she needs the parental consent, then it's in a situation where she doesn't understand the reprocussions entirely. She wouldn't be mature enough to.

reply from: cali1981

Thanks. You quote by putting (q) in front of the quote and (/q) after it...EXCEPT replace the parenthesis with brackets [ ] - if I did that here, you wouldn't see the command.
I never claimed that the child wasn't dependent on the mother's resources to survive. I stated that the child was an individual in his/her own right, as in, not a part of his/her mother.
What identifies a human being or person (the two are synonyms) is not a "theory" on my part - it is science. "Human" as an adjective can refer to one of two things: a human being, or a part of a human being. My hair follicles are human hair follicles, but none of them are human beings. The unborn child is a human being.
The fact that two people may have the same DNA (twins) has no bearing on our ability to distinguish the child and mother as distinct people. As I said earlier, the presence of unique human DNA always certifies that an entity is a distinct individual. In the case of two entities with the same DNA, then further tests must be employed to determine what is going on (for example, are we dealing with identical twins or are we dealing with two body parts belonging to the same person?). But if the DNA is different, then no further testing is needed. In the case of a mother and her unborn child, we will never need further testing, because the mother cannot conceive her own twin - thus her child will always have different DNA from her and always will be able to be distinguished as a different person.
The fact that pro-lifers are against RU-486 does not prove anything for your cause, and is no different from being against any other form of abortion since it ends the life of a child. Pro-lifers have never contended that the unborn child is not dependent on his/her mother, but being dependent does not make one "not a person."
The question still remains to be answered, both by you and by other pro-choicers: Why does the fact that the child is dependent on his/her mother mean that the mother should be able to kill him/her?
When you say that an unborn baby is not an "individual" human being, I think what you really mean is that he/she is living inside of his/her mother, and is dependent on her (like we talked about just a moment ago). Those things do not make an unborn baby "not an individual" or "not a person." This might be a yucky example, but there are bacteria living inside of me right now, depending on my resources for their survival. That does not make them a part of me, or somehow make them cease to be individual life-forms in their own right. If I swallow a bug, that bug occupies my body, but that doesn't make it cease to be a separate being from me.
Pro-choicers often make the same claim that you just did - that you cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. Which specific rights do you see as being in conflict? I don't think there are any. Both can have the same rights under the Constitution.
You also say that the difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the question of whether mother or child holds the "upper hand" as far as rights are concerned - or who has "more rights." This could not be further from the truth. It is inaccurate to portray the pro-life and pro-choice positions as mere "opposites" or "inverses" of each other. It is very important to realize that pro-choicers say that the mother has the right to kill the baby, but pro-lifers don't say that the baby has the right to kill the mother. BIG difference, wouldn't you say? Pro-lifers contend that both persons have the right to live free from being killed by others. Also, pro-lifers don't pretend that the mother doesn't exist, isn't human, isn't alive, or isn't a person with the right to live. All of those things are done by many pro-choicers in an effort to pretend that the unborn child is not the same child as the born child. The fact that every single born child is the same child as he/she was in the womb doesn't seem to penetrate.

reply from: cali1981

That is partly true. If the child has a problem, it won't necessarily affect the mother. If the mother has a health problem, it may or may not affect the child depending on what it is.
However - yes, if a pregnant mother were to become very sick or die, or be poisoned, or something like that, her child would probably die - depending on how old he/she was.
So what? This fact does not mean that a healthy mother should have the legal right to deliberately kill a healthy baby.
Just because anyone has a chance of dying tragically does not give people the right to deliberately kill him/her.

reply from: cali1981

It may be true that every cell in one's body has the potential to be a human being, given what genetic engineering can do. What does that have to do with abortion? Abortion deals with ending the lives of existing human beings, not "potential" human beings.

reply from: faithman

It may be true that every cell in one's body has the potential to be a human being, given what genetic engineering can do. What does that have to do with abortion? Abortion deals with ending the lives of existing human beings, not "potential" human beings.
AAAAH, anything to confuse instead of answereing direct questions.

reply from: cali1981

While many pro-aborts seem to be out to do just that, I'm not sure that is Florestella's intention here. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt until she explains herself.

reply from: cali1981

You could pass a law criminalizing rape-precipitated abortions.
So let me get this straight, you believe that rape victims have the right to terminate a rape-induced pregnancy, but you simultaneously believe that the parents of a rape victim should be allowed to force her to remain rape-induced pregnant against her will?
Doesn't this logic equally apply to your daughter?
Forcing a rape victim to remain rape-induced pregnant against her will is either perfectly acceptable or it's a gross violation of her rights. You can't logically say it's a gross violation of her rights, unless it's your daughter, in which case it's suddenly perfectly acceptable.
Wow...NP's still here, still posting.
How about addressing the slew of questions and challenges to your position that you have been ignoring? There's even a thread where they are all concisely listed..


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics