Do you support abortion as

Do you support abortion as

  • a legal?

    Votes: 39 63.9%

  • an illegal?

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
KarissaMann05 said:
And I saw a few words in your quote: "sprongs I don't understand", and I explained it. No, I am not pick a fight. I sometimes feel annoy whenever unborn children/fetuses are put down so I picked on them as I was refered to those fetuses.
Click to expand...

Oh ok. I still don't know what sprongs means. I never saw the word before.

But I am glad we are not having a fight. I am very tired.
 
Bottesini said:
Oh ok. I still don't know what sprongs means. I never saw the word before.

But I am glad we are not having a fight. I am very tired.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

Heh, I'm sorry if I made you upset... I just look at word for meaning but I realized I mispelled it. :doh:

I meant, it's actually a sprog. =_=;; But, in a case, if you don't know what it is - it's meaning: "a child" in informal and offensive word.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
EDIT:

Heh, I'm sorry if I made you upset... I just look at word for meaning but I realized I mispelled it. :doh:

I meant, it's actually a sprog. =_=;; But, in a case, if you don't know what it is - it's meaning: "a child" in informal and offensive word.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I now see what you were saying. I really get mixed up sometimes if the word is misspelled. Sorry for getting upset.
 
Now, I had enough with few members who debate about my views on abortion, now, I'm fully pro-choice and favor into abortion based on woman's choice for any reason, don't matters instead of limited to rape, life threaten and health issue that related to pregnant.

I'm not surprised about few members who disagreed with me and keep debate about abortion must limited to rape, life threaten or health issue.

Ban on all types of abortion is too extreme and religious to me, I'm favor into separate of government and church since USA is secular.

It's not my choice, it's all up to woman.
 
I personally am against abortion in exception of rape, incest and financial difficulties, but I do not support any legislative actions that bar women from having abortions because of their right to choose.
 
Rape, Incest and Abortion:
Searching Beyond the Myths

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.




"How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?" complains an indignant supporter of abortion. "And how can you call yourself a loving Christian if you would force a victim of violent rape to give birth to a rapist's child?"
Every pro-lifer has heard these same challenges in one form or another. They are the emotionally charged questions designed to prove either 1) that pro-lifers are insensitive "fetus lovers," 2) or ethically inconsistent, allowing abortion for some circumstances but not others.

Unfortunately, most pro-lifers have difficulty answering these challenges because the issue of sexual assault pregnancies is so widely misunderstood. Typically, both sides of the debate accept the presumption that women with sexual assault pregnancies would want an abortion and that the abortion would in some way help them to recover from the assault. Thus, the pro-lifer is left in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the sanctity of life is more important than the needs of the sexual assault victim with whom everyone should rightly sympathize.

But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

The reason most people reach the wrong conclusion about abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who became pregnant are routinely left out of the debate. Most people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, are therefore forming opinions based on prejudices and fears which are disconnected from reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many also feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage of pregnant rape victims believe abortion would be just another act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children.

Second, some believe that their child's life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.

Fourth, at least at a subconscious level, the victim may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing.

If giving birth builds self respect, what about abortion? This is a question which most people fail to even consider. Instead, most people assume that an abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and go on with her life. But in jumping to this conclusion, the public is adopting an unrealistic view of abortion.

Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman "un-pregnant." Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with ramifications on a woman's life, then we must carefully look at the special circumstances of the pregnant rape victim. Will an abortion truly console her, or will it only cause further injury to her already bruised psyche?

In answering this question, it is helpful to begin by noting that many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape.2 This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.

Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now." And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.

This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault.3 This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.

Second, research shows that after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being "dirty," resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem. What is most significant is that these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens of the sexual assault victim, abortion adds to them.

This was the experience of Jackie Bakker, who reports: "I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened."

Those encouraging abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with rape victims, or perhaps out of prejudice against victims whom they see as being "guilty for letting it happen." Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a "quick and easy" way to avoid dealing with the woman's true emotional, social and financial needs.

According to Kathleen DeZeeuw, "I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side."

The case against abortion of incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to an abortion.4 Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a true loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the incest victim may treasure her pregnancy because it offers her hope of release, and the hope of finding a nurturing love, her pregnancy is a threat to the exploiter. It is also a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge that the abuse is occurring. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith Young, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child: "Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss... The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'... My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion providers who ignore this evidence, and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest, are actually contributing to the young girl's victimization. They are not only robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

Finally, we must recognize that the children conceived through sexual assault also have a voice which deserves to be heard. Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud of her mother's courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie proclaims: "It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become."

That's a slogan we can all live with.

References

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.

3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).

4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.
Click to expand...

Just thought people would be interested in reading this. It's what I believe too. It makes me feel very angry when certain women use rape cases to justifying murder as telling a rape victim to murder her rapist's baby usually makes things a hell of a lot worse. So now more condicending replies or guilt trips please. I KNOW what I'm talking about. Pro abortion people like to twist things anyway as they want people to think it's ok for them to comit murder when they want to. I'm sure burgulars would like people to think they had a right to break into someone's property too.
 
Any one who want to adopt this particular belief is more than welcome to do so for themselves. They are not, however, entitled to force it upon anyone else.

Got a link to this opinion paper? I'd like to see where it was published, as well as what discipline the author's Ph.D. is in. Also, forum rule is to provide a link.
 
Originally Posted by Pacman
Life threaten = both of woman and newborn will die if not abort it.


For me, If I have wife that who in life threaten then I would rather to get abortion to save my wife's life, for life threaten, wife's life is more worth than newborn.

Same goes with rape as well.
Click to expand...

Maria said:
Such as what ? If, it happens to me, I would choose to save the baby's life and let myself go. I already have this life before this child, so I rather to give this child a life.
Click to expand...



Maria, I respect your view but I agree with Pacman.

I would NEVER give my life up for a fetus because my family NEED me because my family come first.
 
Fine by me. Here is the link:

Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths

A person can and SHOULD condemn murder. Of course I would never dream of committing burgulary, driving drunk or assulting someone. Neither would I think it apropriate to allow anyone else to do these things and see no reason why it should be any differant for abortion. Because the fetus is living feeling being so they should NOT be killed. NOBODY has that right.

Edited to put typo right.
 
Originally Posted by jazzy
Are u telling me how to live my life by force me to carry 9 month of pregnant? If I was raped then I wanted it to remove from my body. I want that freedom of choice and not run by those who are against pro-choices.
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
I AGREE!!! Nobody has the right to tell me what I should do with my body just like I dont have any right to tell them what to do with their bodies.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY!!!

Government should not dictate what and how we do with our body because it´s none of their business.

If I don´t want to give my life up for a fetus for severe reasons then is my decision, not Government.


 
jillio said:
Exactly. How dare they push their moral views down another's throat, and then claim to be defending the rights of anyone. Rights are a legal concept, not a moral one.

And I want to know exactly who appointed all the anti-abortionists the saviors of all the fetuses and the guardian of all women's wombs? They are free to do whatever their moral values dictate as long as it doesn't go past their own nose and interfere with the rights of others. "Don't agree with abortion? Then don't have one." But I'll be damned if you will dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my own body or what my morals should be.
Click to expand...

*nodding agreement*
 
dreama said:
Unfortunately late abortions for the disabled are NOT banned. In England a disabled fetus can be aborted up until over 30 weeks when they are almost ready to come out. I think that is very wrong and unethnical. So while ANY late abortions are legal then we should talk about it.

The problem with this debate I think is precisely the fact that those who are pro abortion always dwell on abortions that happen at a stage when the baby is only a few cells but since abortion is still legal at 24 weeks when some babies are actually capable of serviving outside the womb the arguement that the unborn baby is 'just a few cells' is invalid.

I refuse to talk just about early abortions until the abortions of ANY Fetusus become illigal.

Why can't pro abortion people talk about LEGAL late abortions of the 'disabled' babies for a change. As it DOES happen. At least in England anyway. And no this does not include just severe disability. It also includes deaf, spina bifida and downs babies too who could live productive live styles. As well as mistakes where they think the baby is disabled but sometimes this turns out not to be the case. As the tests for disabilties are not always reliable.

Another thing. I'm not a christian. I am against abortion purely for secular reasons.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know but many doctors/gyn. told patients to abort up to 12/13 weeks, not after. I know what I am saying because some of my British friends have experience it. They only do if mothers decide to not want to keep defect babies or do not want to give their life up for a fetus (life threatening). They do not accept if mothers change their mind later for rid of fetus up to 24 weeks... Many doctors/gyn. can say if they like to... It´s very hard to find abortionist who can do for them after 12/13 weeks.

Here in Germany, abortion restriction up to 12 weeks, not after unless life threatening and defect fetuses to 24 weeks. It is same as in England as well.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
OOOH yes, I saw that before. Thanks of that :)

I still can't imgaine if mom aborts me because of I'm a child of rapist father. :Ohno: :(
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know. A fetus in the first trimester does not have consciousness.
 
dreama said:
Also another article here:

Abortion after rape
Click to expand...

The link goes back to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, and is nothing more than their opinion. It is not based on solid evidence, and do we even need to mention bias?

Any woman who has been raped is free to chose to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth to that child. No one is telling anyone that they must abort if they are raped.

By the same token, no one has the right to tell any woman that has been raped that she must carry that pregancy to term, and to do so is to totally disregard the rights and well being of women every where. The decision is hers, period. Whe was already victimized by the rape. How dare anyone propose to revictimize her by removing her choice.
 
jillio said:
You wouldn't know. A fetus in the first trimester does not have consciousness.
Click to expand...

And rest of it's life will deeply effect on a fetus's/unborn child's on his/her people she/he know if it is not here.
Like I said before, I would not here to effect massive-ly on people I know if she choose my death sentence.

Again, you're right. Just because if a woman is raped and pregnant, that's not mean she will abort it 100%.

I think it is 1 out of 3 women are pregnants by rape actions and have abortions while there are only 1/3 women had abortions by no rapes. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
 
I have some questions for you all since we know that Palin is a pro-lifer and want to ban abortion rights.

Some of you know that Palin do not support Universal healthcare for all Americans. Who will cover the cost for therapies to develop disabled children or surgery to improve disabled children´s body if the abortion rights are banned?


Here in Germany, the healthcare pay everything to 99% if we want to keep disabled babies but many Germans prefer to not keep disabled children because it would burden them with a lot of work, time, stress, etc. Healthcare respect their wish for not keep disabled babies and cover the abortion cost for them.


That´s why I support healthcare for all Americans who can feel free to help their family with health development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top