Abortion debate trivializes rape

[Empty Hands]

Personally, my belief about allowing abortion doesn't really depend on the motivations or sexual promiscuity of the women who get them because it's not about whether they get them, it's about their right to choose.

Very true. That's why asking for evidence on this point is a red herring. It shifts the debate to "convenience vs. need", on assigning fault. This really shouldn't matter to either side.

FWIW, I'm absolutely sure Don is correct on that point. However, that point should be meaningless to both sides of the debate.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Very true. That's why asking for evidence on this point is a red herring. It shifts the debate to "convenience vs. need", on assigning fault. This really shouldn't matter to either side.

FWIW, I'm absolutely sure Don is correct on that point. However, that point should be meaningless to both sides of the debate.

This is a great point (and illustrates how easily I got distracted myself), but tying back to the OP, it seems the same representatives who made the original comments had similar misconceptions---blaming the victim, in a roundabout way. So even if it isn't logically a factor in allowing abortion (note, Don: not aborition itself, but allowing it) being 'right or wrong', it definitely seems relevant to the discussion....if we can call it that.

 

[KELLYG]

When Rep. Barbara Bollier voiced concern for women who may become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, this exchange followed:
DeGraaf: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier: "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?"
DeGraaf: "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

This exchange offends me to the very core. This DeGraaf person has insulted and degenerated all the people that have suffered from the Violent attack Rape. He has equated it as to checking to see if you have enough life insurance, or that your tires are in good shape before you drive. You don't plan ahead to get violated.

As to what should be done after an attack that could result in pregnancy. I think that only the person that was attacked has the right to determine whether to keep the child (if pregnant) or not. There also is the Plan B pill that could be used.

I personally do not support abortion, but I approve of a woman's right to choose!!!

Since this Degraff person is Male any decision concerning conseption during rape has no bearing on his life at all.

No offence to the Male species, just this Degraff (person).

 

[WC_lun]

Pro-abortion. That wording is so loaded and full of fail it is ridiculous. I don't know of anyone that is thinks abortion is a good thing, as your phrase indicates. It is the lesser of evils for every pro-CHOICE person I know.

Lets also make another thing clear, abortions have and will happen regardless if it is legal or not. Many times putting the woman's life in danger. I understand if a person is not in favor of keeping abortion legal, but seems to me that many of people with that belief could stop vilifying people that don't believe the same, and maybe care about the woman as much as they claim to care about the "unborn children."

 

[Kacey]

Then again, if their agenda was pure, they'd have a houseful of adopted kids and fosters. Plus raising money for scholar ship for kids of single moms.
Last I heard, the county was looking for foster homes in a very bad way!

Indeed. Anti-abortionists will convince women to choose to bear the child to term; sometimes, they will even help the women to receive medical care prior to and during birth. Once the child is born, the mother and child are dropped like a hot potato. If such people were truly concerned about the child, care would continue until the child is fully adult and has completed school.

Things happen. Short of a hysterectomy, birth control fails. Sometimes, the child-to-be is wanted, but the biological development fails. The path from zygote to human is not trivial. Fetuses may be lacking entire systems of organs, may threaten the mother's life, and may, on occasion, be better described as lumps of cancerous flesh than as fetuses.

This happened to a friend of mine; in fact, she nearly died of it. Due to a genetic abnormality, her fetus died in utero. Unfortunately for my friend, her insurance company sent her to a Catholic hospital, which performed abortions only if the mother's life was clearly in danger - so despite having determined that the fetus was dead, the hospital would not induce labor, nor perform a D&C (both methods of abortion) until she was in clear, medical danger. Therefore, she stayed in the hospital for 4 days, knowing her fetus was dead inside of her, waiting to either go into labor naturally, or to develop an infection from the dead tissue that had been her fetus and go into toxic shock, at which point her life would be in danger - which is what happened. She developed toxic shock, characterized by significant fever and massive infection, at which point the abortion was performed - at much greater risk to her life than if it had been done earlier. Notice the fetus was already dead when all of this occurred - but the necessary procedure was technically an abortion, and the hospital refused to do it until her life was in danger.

This is one of those cases where, to me, abortion is a clear and appropriate procedure - but because of moral objections to the word "abortion", despite medical proof that life had already ended, it couldn't be done. I have never understood how this was a reasonable decision.

As usual, it is a great melange of greys - no black and no white, no matter how much some people may wish otherwise.

Definitely. A Catholic friend of mine once told me that if she were raped and became pregnant as a result, she would bear the child and then give it up for adoption. That's her choice. I'm not sure I could do it, but I respect her adherence to her beliefs.

Bottom line: if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. But don't tell other people what they can and cannot in regards to abortion, unless you are willing to support your words with your actions, by providing for the child thus born through adulthood and beyond, just as you would for a child of your own.

 

[Blade96]

i'd like to add that although pro lifers would insist a fetus is not a parasite, there are cases where, yes indeed it is a parasite that lives off its host and can even kill it. Its called 'fetus in fetu.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

 

[Nomad]

This happened to a friend of mine; in fact, she nearly died of it. Due to a genetic abnormality, her fetus died in utero. Unfortunately for my friend, her insurance company sent her to a Catholic hospital, which performed abortions only if the mother's life was clearly in danger - so despite having determined that the fetus was dead, the hospital would not induce labor, nor perform a D&C (both methods of abortion) until she was in clear, medical danger. Therefore, she stayed in the hospital for 4 days, knowing her fetus was dead inside of her, waiting to either go into labor naturally, or to develop an infection from the dead tissue that had been her fetus and go into toxic shock, at which point her life would be in danger - which is what happened. She developed toxic shock, characterized by significant fever and massive infection, at which point the abortion was performed - at much greater risk to her life than if it had been done earlier. Notice the fetus was already dead when all of this occurred - but the necessary procedure was technically an abortion, and the hospital refused to do it until her life was in danger.

This is one of those cases where, to me, abortion is a clear and appropriate procedure - but because of moral objections to the word "abortion", despite medical proof that life had already ended, it couldn't be done. I have never understood how this was a reasonable decision.

This is absolutely appalling, and well illustrates some of the quagmire associated with the politics surrounding abortions. There is no way this should have been considered an abortion (abort meaning literally to stop), since the fetus was already dead, and the threat to the mother (their actual patient) was clear and 100% predictable. To decide to wait until she was in danger of losing her life is at best criminal negligence, and clearly violates the hypocratic oath to "do no harm".

Personally, I think she has a phenomenal medical malpractice suit which she should pursue, not necessarily for the monetary recompense (though that might be nice too) but to force the institution in question to amend their rules on similar situations.

 

[Empty Hands]

Personally, I think she has a phenomenal medical malpractice suit which she should pursue, not necessarily for the monetary recompense (though that might be nice too) but to force the institution in question to amend their rules on similar situations.

Include the insurance company too for requiring a policy holder to use an institute that won't perform medically necessary procedures.

 

[granfire]

Definitely. A Catholic friend of mine once told me that if she were raped and became pregnant as a result, she would bear the child and then give it up for adoption. That's her choice. I'm not sure I could do it, but I respect her adherence to her beliefs.

Bottom line: if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. But don't tell other people what they can and cannot in regards to abortion, unless you are willing to support your words with your actions, by providing for the child thus born through adulthood and beyond, just as you would for a child of your own.

Well, I suppose even she won't know until (hopefully never) is presented with the question.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Yeah, because nobody adopts kids or fosters them anymore. There hasn't been one adoption since Roe v Wade...

Um, I adopted my kid after Roe v Wade....and my aunt adopted my three cousins after RVW....I'm reasonably certain we're not the only ones.

 

[Flea]

My aunt and uncle are on their 20th foster baby right now. They also happen to be militantly pro-choice. If I were any kind of a kid person I'd do likewise, but I've more than earned my community service stripes in other ways.

 

[granfire]

My aunt and uncle are on their 20th foster baby right now. They also happen to be militantly pro-choice. If I were any kind of a kid person I'd do likewise, but I've more than earned my community service stripes in other ways.

I can accept the position when it is backing up the consequences.

But that is not the rule. Rather the exception.

 

[Big Don]

I can accept the position when it is backing up the consequences.

But that is not the rule. Rather the exception.

Boy, you could sure apply that to incest and rape...

 

[Empty Hands]

Boy, you could sure apply that to incest and rape...

If you are going to continue to make this point, you could at least answer my question and tell us all why it matters.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Do you have anything to back this up? Statistics showing the causes of aborted pregnancies for example? Maybe a study of the intake questionnaires? How about a study showing repeat abortions to indicate the frequency with which women consider abortion a convenient contraception method? Or is this all just ideological talking points?

I'm being such a stickler about evidence because what you just typed assumes a lot, and makes pretty clear your preconceptions about the women getting abortions. I don't believe those preconceptions apply to most or even many of them, so I call B.S.

Personally, my belief about allowing abortion doesn't really depend on the motivations or sexual promiscuity of the women who get them because it's not about whether they get them, it's about their right to choose.

I just looked 'em up. I'm pro-choice, but Big Don is right about this. Medical necessity and rape/incest combined come in at 7 percent of stated reasons for abortion. Most common are "unready for responsibility" and "can't afford baby" -- 21 percent each for a total of 42 percent.

Those aren't the cavalier attitude I think BD assumes, but it's still pretty sad. The problem could be solved by adoption. Contrary to BD's other post, it's still very easy to find a home for an infant.

 

[WC_lun]

I agree that adoption is a much better option than abortion. If only every case where this was a real possibility would it happen. However, carrying a baby to term still has economic repurcussions and is a lot of responsibility.

 

[cdunn]

I agree that adoption is a much better option than abortion. If only every case where this was a real possibility would it happen. However, carrying a baby to term still has economic repurcussions and is a lot of responsibility.

Health repercussions as well. The process is non-trivial. A lot of both could be minimized by a stronger health care system, but that costs the community money.

Better, and cheaper, in the first place is to make it both easier, and more acceptable, to choose not to get pregnant in the first place. That'll take real sex education, and resources placed into making birth control readily available - and non-stigmatized.

 

[Flea]

The problem could be solved by adoption. Contrary to BD's other post, it's still very easy to find a home for an infant.

Not necessarily. Adoption is an extremely lengthy and expensive process in the US. Not only can the legal situations of the birth family be a swamp impossible to navigate, but racial barriers remain a significant issue in adoption. As with GLBT households and those wanting to adopt as single parents. Many adoptive parents try to adopt American children first, and ultimately turn overseas in frustration. Would that it were not so.

Out of curiosity, I googled "abortion clinic" in my new city and found two. One private OB-GYN practice, and the local Planned Parenthood. I've been driving past the PP for a year now and had no idea it was even there, much less that they offered abortion services. No pickets, no photoshopped giant posters of foeti, no one saying the Rosary. * sigh * I knew I'd moved here for a reason. Welcome home.