Of course you should use protection first. That goes without saying. You should protect yourself from getting pregnant, contracting HIV, and catching any number of STD's. Protection is ALWAYS the first barrier.

Where in my post does it sound like I'm advocating abortion in lieu of birth control?

Ah, so rape victims choose to get raped! Damn if only they had taken precautions before hand!

/sarcasm :disgust

I think everyone who is "pro-life" agrees that a rape victim is a MUST case.

Everyone who is 'pro-life' needs to start adopting kids then. Or is it they are just hypocrites? They seem to want to force women to have children yet they don't seem to want those kids after they are given up for adoption. Until we get a system in place to get kids out of the orphanages and into healthy, caring, loving homes... pro-choice is the best thing for this country and indeed the entire world. After you manage to get all the children in orphanages adopted into a loving and stable families, then we’ll talk about ‘pro-life’.

You jump from theme to theme.

Rape victim should have LEGAL Abortion (As many other MUST cases)

Noone is FORCING anybody to have kids. If you don't wanna have kids you can use protection!!!!! Or simply DON'T FUCK AROUND.

Legal abortion should be only a question of MUST situations.

That's not true. Our local pro-life group's ONLY "Acceptable" reason for an abortion is when the mother's health is at risk. Women that are raped are told that the baby shouldn't be a second victim.

I can only assume this is an official position.

Sorry about that... I thought that would be a MUST.

It should in my opinion.

Earlier I referenced a site which indicates that less than 400 pregnancies result from rape and/or incest. If this is true, rape and incest are not the major reasons for abortions.

I was NOT joking; but I do agree with what you're saying that it's BOTH people's responsibility to protect themselves. However, any girl with half a brain in her head (and a halfway decent mother) should ALWAYS protect herself because SHE is the one who stands to bear the brunt of the consequences. Moreover, in the particular situation I spoke of, this girl lied about being on the Pill (and yes, dumbshit male deserves a foot up his ass for believing her), lied about deciding to abort and then about choosing to adopt the kid out. That's fucked up. Perhaps my mother raised me better than hers did, because I can't imagine being so deceitful, especially about something as life-altering as making someone a parent when they clearly didn't want to be one. All the bitch had to do was tell the truth and let the boy be prepared for paternity. Sorry, no pity for her... and quite frankly, not much for him, either, and I've told him so in no uncertain terms. It's not like he wasn't told hundreds of times NEVER to have unprotected sex throughout his life! Damn kids.

With all the "keep your legs closed / dick in your pants" going on around here, I'd just like to toss out there that there's such a thing as FAILURE of one's method of birth control, and it happens more often than most people might think. If a woman's been vigilant about protecting herself, she's clearly choosing not to breed at this time. But if she gets pregnant anyway because her contraceptive failed, her wishes no longer matter? Doesn't seem right.

And for those guys who think women should just get their tubes tied if they don't want to have kids, please have some woman you know call and survey a bunch of doctors as to whether they'll tie her tubes. Dollars to donuts, not one of them will voluntarily perform the procedure if she's under 35, has no children and/or is not married. Believe me, you can tell a doctor you NEVER want kids until you're fucking blue in the face, and they'll do everything in their power to keep you from shutting down your reproductive system before it's outlived its usefulness naturally.

Controlling women's sexuality is at the core of the abortion debate. It's not about saving babies, it's about punishing those sluts who dare to have sex without intending to experience the "miracle" of childbirth.

It's not an official position.

Here's a good read:


Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?

We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation.

The utilitarian question from the mother?s stand-point is whether or not it would now be better to kill the developing baby within her. But will abortion now be best for her, or will it bring her more harm yet? What has happened and its damage has already occurred.

She?s old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether she carries a "baby" or a "blob of protoplasm." Will she be able to live comfortably with the memory that she "killed her developing baby"? Or would she ultimately be more mature and more at peace with herself if she could remember that, even though she became pregnant unwillingly, she nevertheless solved her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked to be created, to deliver, perhaps to place for adoption, if she decides that is what is best for her baby. Compare this memory with the woman who can only look back and say, "I killed my baby."

But carry the rapist?s child?

True, it is half his. But remember, half of the baby is also hers, and there are other outstretched arms that will adopt and love that baby.

I don?t see how she could!

"Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim?s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families.

"We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering the abortion, because it is what they did." M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders Anonymous, Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981

"In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim?s problems stem more from the trauma of rape than from the pregnancy itself." Mahkorn & Dolan, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239

As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved ones treated her. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual Assault." In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

But many laws would allow for this exception.

That is because many only think of the mother. But we should also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father? Or let?s look at it this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children? Besides, such laws pose major problems in reporting, and also women have been known to report falsely.

You accuse women of lying?

We don?t have to. Radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in a 1985 interview with USA Today said that "to make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie."

The story of Jane Roe, of the Roe v. Wade Decision, is well known. Norma McCorvey (her real name) fabricated a story, that she had been gang raped at a circus, in the mistaken impression that this would permit her to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Not until 1987 did she reveal that the baby was actually conceived "through what I thought was love." (Post, Sept. 9, 1987.) And:

Up until 1988, Pennsylvania?s Medicaid program funded abortions, for women who claimed they had been raped, without any requirement for reporting of the purported assault to a law enforcement agency. Under this law, abortion clinic personnel issued thinly veiled public invitations for women to simply state that they?d been raped, and the state ended up funding an average of 36 abortions a month based on such unsubstantiated claims. In 1988 the legislature added a requirement for reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency, and the average dropped to less than three abortions per month.

I'm pro life.
I'm not religious or Republican either.

You said reporting was a problem?

The problem is requiring proof. If the woman goes directly to the hospital, her word is accepted. But, sadly, through fright or ignorance, she may not report it and quietly nurse her fears. She misses her period and hopes against hope that it isn’t what she thinks it is. Sometimes months go by before finally, in tears, she reports to her mother, her physician, or some other counselor or confidante. To prove rape then is impossible. The only proof of rape then is to have a reliable witness corroborate the story, and such a witness almost never exists.

What proof would be needed early on?

Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed. Any hospital emergency room will handle this.

If done within a day or two, she can be examined, given medicine for sexually transmitted diseases and counseled. Her word will rarely be questioned. But if it is many days later, especially after a missed period, her word may not be enough (see above).

What percentage of rape pregnancies are aborted?

Less than half. The balance carry the baby to term. In one study of 37 rape pregnancies, 28 carried to term. S. Makhorn, in Psychological Aspects of Abortion, Mall & Watts, Univ. Pub. 1979, Pg. 58

What is her chief complaint?

Perhaps, surprisingly, it is not the fact that she is pregnant. Her chief complaint is "how other people treat her." This should be very sobering to everyone. How is she treated? Do others understand the trauma she has experienced, and love and support her? Or, do they avoid her and act as if it was partly her fault, or worse? Just think, if all such victims were given generous love and support, many more than at present would carry their babies to term. Mahkorn & Dona, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy." In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual Assault." In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

What if she could not cope with raising the child?

We must let these women know that it is all right to feel that way. We fully understand. That does not mean, however, that the baby is unwanted. There are innumerable arms outstretched, aching for a child to love. Any number of couples will want the child. She should be supported and encouraged if she chooses to place the child in a loving adoptive home.

She had a problem. Abortion permanently removes the problem. Or is there emotional aftermath?

In recent years it has become clear that these women can and do suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome. When PAS does develop, a woman, so affected, can carry the same burdens of guilt, denial and depression that a woman who aborted a "love" baby often does. Why is this? At least two dynamics seem obvious. Remember that the rape was done to her. She was not responsible. She was the innocent victim and should bear no guilt. But, by contrast, the abortion will be done by her. She agreed to it. She was a volitional participant in a second act of violence: the killing of her own unborn child. And it is her own unborn child. This is the other inescapable fact of biology that probably is a factor in the development of PAS. The newly-conceived baby is certainly the "rapist’s child," but he or she is also her child, for half of the new baby’s genetic material came from her. She may try, but, inside of her, she cannot deny this biologic reality, however unwillingly it happened and however upsetting it may be. And so, to kill this little one by abortion is to participate in a violent, lethal act that destroys a baby who is partly her own flesh and blood. In loving charity, we should never remind her of this.

But we don’t have to, for she knows it instinctively and all of her maternal feelings may well rebel when faced with being a part of this killing.

The "treatment" for rape, isn’t it abortive?

This is best illustrated by giving two theoretical case histories. Woman "A" is raped at midnight on Saturday and is treated in a hospital emergency room with a female hormone medication beginning at 3:00 a.m. Sunday morning. In this case, the woman’s body was scheduled to ovulate two days later, on Monday. If that were to have occurred, and if the assailant’s sperm were still alive in her body, she might have been fertilized two days after the assault and become pregnant at that time. A very small body of medical opinion believes that the dose of medication given might prevent that ovulation, and she would therefore not get pregnant. This mechanism of action would be one of temporary sterilization, or, in more commonly used (however technically inaccurate) terms, the action would be contraceptive. Woman "B" presents a different case. She had ovulated at 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, was raped at midnight, and also received treatment at 3:00 a.m. To her own observation, this lady also does not "get pregnant." In fact, something entirely different happened inside her body. Let us assume that she was one of those very rare cases where fertilization did occur, and had, in fact, occurred prior to the giving of the medication. The life of a tiny new little boy or girl had begun. The cells of this tiny body begin to divide and divide again, but at one week of life, when implantation within the nutrient lining of the mother’s womb should occur, this tiny new human being could not implant and died. The mechanism of action of the drug, in this case, had been to harden the lining of the womb in order to prevent implantation. This effect was one of a micro-abortion, at one week of life and represents the large majority of medical opinion.

Would a Human Life Amendment in America, or a law forbidding abortion in another nation, prevent such treatment?

Most legal opinion agrees that since these drugs have a multiplicity of other beneficial and therapeutic effects, they would never be removed from the market. Since they would in some cases have a legally permissible effect (temporary sterilization or/and contraception), even with a strong Human Life Amendment in place, the use of such drugs after rape could not be forbidden. Therefore, the choice now available to a woman after a assault rape, to use or not use such treatment, would still be available after such a law.

Does anyone win after a rape?

Once, after answering questions on rape on a radio show, one of your authors was called to the phone after the program. A woman’s voice said,

"You were talking about me. You see, I am the product of rape. An intruder forced his way into my parents’ house, tied up my father and, with him watching, raped my mother. I was conceived that night. Everyone advised an abortion. The local doctors and hospital were willing. My father, however, said, ‘Even though not mine, that is a child and I will not allow it to be killed!’ I don’t know how many times that, as I lay secure in the loving arms of my husband, I have thanked God for my wonderful Christian father." And so, does anyone win? Yes, the baby does.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_...em_both_29.asp

I was jsut goign to say the same thing! It would definitely stop teen pregnancies! I remember a couple girls in high school who all had 2 or 3 babies each by the time they were 18 AND were relying on welfare to pay for their babies! What a waste of money and life!:disgust

Actually, that is a good read. But did YOU read it? It pretty much backs up exactly what I said.

Three snippets...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life."
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. "But carry the rapist?s child?

True, it is half his. But remember, half of the baby is also hers, and there are other outstretched arms that will adopt and love that baby.

I don?t see how she could!

"Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim?s chief complaint is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this area. It frequently pulls families together like never before. When women are impregnated through rape, their condition is treated in accordance, as are their families."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "That is because many only think of the mother. But we should also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn baby for the crime of his father? Or let?s look at it this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their children?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless I'm reading it out of context, those are three examples in that article alone of a pro-lifer arguing against a rape victim having an abortion. Whether it's an official position or not, it's selfrighteousness at it's finest.

I'm not into abortion but there's a lot of reasons why women do that. I think it's ok if she was raped. But if you got pregnant having it with your BF or friend it still depends...

Partial birth abortions are preformed up to 40 weeks of pregnancy in some areas. Yes, they birth the baby breech (feet first) and stick an instrument in its head to suck out the brains and flatten the head (which is the largest part of the baby) so as to easily remove it. This ?leaving the head in? technicality gives the doctors the ability to say the baby was not ?born? yet or else, YES, it would be considered murder.

Having a healthy baby is a blessing. I worked at the morgue and have seen dead babies, as well as, dead mothers. No, it?s not 1812 or whatever but Dr.?s cant save everyone. I have seen babies born with horrifying birth defects and it caused total devastation to the family; to carry the baby to term and then let it die in their arms in the delivery room?. To see dead babies everyday, lying on cold steel tables in freezers having died, from whatever reason, is heart wrenching. And it happens because of natural caused yes, but also because the mother/father/boyfriend/who ever beat it to death, neglected it, starved it, didn?t give it proper medical attention, so many things? I (impo) think that it was worse to see those babies and children in the morgue that felt all the pain, which suffered, who died agonizing deaths because they were unwanted. Women who had children on drugs or with diseases; girls having babies and not having the knowledge to care for them. Id say probably around 75% of the children that I checked into the morgue would have been better off being abortion cases rather than being the cases I handled there. 75% could have been prevented! Shit it?s probably more than that too. That?s fucking sad. I could go on for days about the horror stories of what people do to children. So many of those children did not have to suffer. Which is why I?m pro-choice.

I will be ABSOLUTELY DISCUSTED if those anti-abortion laws pass. You CANNOT FORCE a mother or father to care for a child properly. IT WILL cause more crime and poverty and most unfortunately child deaths.

I remember this woman who got pregnant with a guy she doesn't love and informed my mom that she had miscarriage and she did it intentionally, she said that she'd rather have the 1 month fetus aborted than to concieve it for 9 months give birth and after that she can't assure if she can give her child a happy life. And somehow she's right.

They provide a factual as well as moral basis for arguing against such abortions. There is nothing self-righteous about those arguments. They're just providing the other side of the argument. If the person still wants it, they'll get it.

i think it is a choice that you have to take both as you also made it both. And i think it is fine to let taken away if you really don't want it or can't care for it. I do not see it as killing some one.

Your argument is based on what "might" happen to kids that aren't aborted. Pre-emptive killing... sounds a lot like Iraq. What about those that are wanted or the mother that thought she didn't want it but once she has it is thankful she didn't abort it. There will always be people that kill their kids or treat them horribly - abortions or no abortions aren't going to change that.

I think if the kid is defective and is going to die anyway, from say, the amount of drugs it has in its body because of the mothers habits, it would be preferrable to abort it.

UM YEAH NO. Your ?might? situation?. Okay the day I had to go pick up a two week old decomp body of a 5-year-old boy who was beaten to death by repeated blunt force trauma to the head (not to mention the wounds/scars from the years of abuse prior to his death) that was not a ?might happen? it did happen. Was he better off in the morgue with me?
Or the day I had an 11 month old baby girl whose face was behind her head. If she looked down she would have seen her back. She was shaken to death and when he dropped her lifeless body, her head twisted around backwards. I couldn?t bring myself to put it back right so I took her body to our head embalmer, Dave, and had him twist her head around again so that the family could have an open casket ceremony. That wasn?t a ?might? situation either. Was she better off in the morgue with me?
How about the newborn, who I had to soak in hot water so I could peel the hospital blanket off of only to find that the baby was born with all the organs outside the chest. Turns out the family knew all along threw ultrasounds and decided to carry the baby to full term. She delivered the baby and held it long enough for it to open its eyes and then cut the umbilical cord and watched her die. To me that is just sick. That to me is murder. That too wasn?t your ?might? situation.

What about the mother that thought she didn't want it but once she has it is thankful she didn't abort it? Well that happens every day. The laws don?t force people to have abortions.

There will always be people that kill their kids or treat them horribly ?TRUE.

?Abortions or no abortions aren't going to change that.? WRONG.
FORCING people to carry children WILL in fact make that worse. Haven?t you seen what women do in countries where abortion is illegal? In back allies and with coat hangers at home? OD?ing on pills and all kinds of crazy bullshit. That is just going to make things in the US hospitals and morgues worse. Have you never seen the girls who dump their babies in the trash or leave them in cars? You don?t think that that will increase when you force a girl to give birth??

You need a reality check!:)

No she is not

I have an appointment for my GF to do one this Saturday :/

I think the kind of people you describe DISERVES what ever happend to her in that "allie"

If you make abortion LEGAL then she'll have no problem to get an abortion, or two... or ten.

Yes and 97% of all abortions are due to a sneaky band of super fertile rapists scouring the land..... :uhoh So whats the percentage of rape abortions done per year?

I know you hate books, but read the thread hehe. Infants rarely spend time in orphanages. There are special needs children that are harder to place without question, but the majority of most abortions are not due to problems with the child. I posted some links showing the demand for newborn adoptions that are out there.

Though Id rather see the child live, I can understand the situation. HOWEVER if a girl is raped she normally is aware she was raped nearly.. instantly. So that would be a good time for the morning after pill or other procedures to deal with it right away. It should be only brought into the debate as a small footnote. To put it at the head of the list is silly. The percentage of abortions due to rape Im sure is well below 5%.

Those things already happen when abortion is legal. One has the question the humanity of a person who could dump their own flesh and blood baby into trash bins or leave them in cars when there are other alternatives. Check all the links posted in thus far.

Destroying an embryo is one thing, but a developed baby inside the womb is another. Not only do people have the choice on whether to get pregnant or not by using contraceptives, they also have the choice of aborting a would-be baby long before it becomes a small human with a brain and pain receptors.

I'm unsure, depends on circumstances

Your previous quote and your following quote are the same thing to me. Both can feel pain, both are conscious. The only difference is that one lives within the womb and the other doesn't. Your morgue looks like it's full both ways. You don't find it disturbing that your argument hinges on a "technicality"?

Does it really matter how many RAPES that end up in pregnancy, then those who choose to abort those fetuses that are produced from the RAPE? does it matter at all? It doesn't matter the number; North Korea has only tested ONE nuke -- do you really think numbers matter??? Abortions may not be exactly ?saintly? but they are a necessity. Until orphanages are shut down because there is no need for them in our world, until every child has a stable home environment with loving and caring parents, pro-choice is the only stance that makes any logical sense.

First of all, there's no such medical procedure as a "partial birth abortion," a misleading, inflammatory phrase invented purely for effect, used by people wholly ignorant of the procedure and how serious a case must be for it to be performed. Dilation and extraction (D&X) is the medical term, and more often than not it's performed because the fetus has such severe brain or neurological damage that it could hardly be considered "conscious" and its nervous system wouldn't even function well enough to feel anything (unlike the mother, who must endure an otherwise "normal" labor and delivery - but hey, she's gotta take her lumps for choosing not to give birth to that baby she wanted enough to carry almost to term before finding out it had severe neural tube damage, or has an empty brainpan, right?). If the small percentage of abortions due to rape are being excluded from the discussion as outside the norm, then so should late-term abortions. I'd suspect their numbers are at least as low as those for cases of terminated pregnancies by rape victims. Of the few women who do opt for late-term abortions, I'm pretty confident in stating that few if any are going through the procedure just because they don't want to be pregnant anymore. In fact, I doubt you could find a doctor willing to perform the procedure "just 'cuz." The further along in the pregnancy, the more dangerous the termination procedure is.

Abortion already IS legal here, though the anti-choice folks are doing whatever they can to chip away at the laws.

And y'know, if a woman can afford one, two or ten abortions, then she has every right to have them if she so chooses. We also have the right to our opinion that she's a fucking irresponsible moron who needs to have her twat sewn shut, but it's nobody's business - neither society's nor government's - what any woman does with regard to her own body. If she chooses to cease functioning as host organism to a being that is completely reliant upon her physical resources for survival, especially during the first trimester, the decision rests entirely with her, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is "right."

You can't legislate morality, and you can't fix stupid. That's life.

And you cannot teach common sense (which, ironically, is not usually very common).

Excellent points.

:2 cents: :thumbsup