What About Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest? Women and Sexual Assault

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don’t want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

LifeNews.com/nat6223.html
 
Our society is so terribly narcissistic that very few people can see past the end of their nose. For a young woman to give birth to a child concieved in violence takes the utmost in love, support and encouragement. To give life to the child demonstrates God’s ability to bring good from evil and provides the woman a chance to forgive. Abortion only drives the blade deeper into the woman’s soul and leads to anger, hate and hopelessness. Pray for them and support Right to Life and your local crisis pregnancy center.
 
juliee said:
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don’t want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

LifeNews.com/nat6223.html
Click to expand...
Some folks need to try telling this woman that she should have been sucked out of her mother’s womb and thrown in a garbage can, and that her life didn’t matter because she was conceived in rape. Then ask her own children how they feel about that.

Abortion is wrong. Period. Non-negotiable.

~Liza
 
juliee said:
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don’t want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

LifeNews.com/nat6223.html
Click to expand...
Can somebody explain to me what the baby did to deserve the death penalty? Particularly without benefit of a trial (clear violation of the baby’s fifth amendment rights).
 
markomalley said:
Can somebody explain to me what the baby did to deserve the death penalty? Particularly without benefit of a trial (clear violation of the baby’s fifth amendment rights).
Click to expand...
And so many of those who think that the baby should be killed in his or her mother’s womb would be totally aghast at the thought of the same penalty for the actual criminal.
 
Well, the Church allows the use of Plan B/Emergency Contraception to a rape victim immediately after the rape, in the emergency room, provided she 1) test negative to a pregnancy test and 2) test that she is not ovulating. Anything beyond that is considered an “abortion” by the Church. This is a teaching of the Church, but I disagree with point #2 personally, and I’m not alone. I think that Plan B should be offered to a rape victim who tests negative to a pregnancy test. Period. It takes a few hours up to 36 hours to conceive, and for me, the risk would be worth taking to avoid pregnancy in the case of rape. If one acts on it quickly, the primary intervention would be working towards preventing a preganancy from happening in the first place.

For myself, with regards to a rape, I myself would take the Plan B in the emergency room, regardless of any testing for ovulation. If I got pregnant anyway, I don’t think I’d take further action, and the ONLY reason why I wouldn’t take action is because I’d be afraid that if this was truly a sin, I’d be in sin. However, I cannot in good conscience deny another woman the right to make that descision. I believe it would be immoral of me to take away a rape victim’s right to defend herself against an forced pregnancy. We live (or are supposed to live) chaste lives, why should a woman not only be raped, but then be forced to become pregnant on top of it? If a woman decides that she would rather risk turning a really horrific bad thing into maybe a good thing by risking pregnancy, that is HER choice, it takes a very special woman, and everyone should support her choice. But if she decides she doesn’t want any part of a pregnancy resulting from rape, that is her choice as well. I thank God every day that this country provides that choice to rape victims (and most do anyway).
 
Rence said:
Well, the Church allows the use of Plan B/Emergency Contraception to a rape victim immediately after the rape, in the emergency room, provided she 1) test negative to a pregnancy test and 2) test that she is not ovulating. Anything beyond that is considered an “abortion” by the Church. This is a teaching of the Church, but I disagree with point #2 personally, and I’m not alone. I think that Plan B should be offered to a rape victim who tests negative to a pregnancy test. Period. It takes a few hours up to 36 hours to conceive, and for me, the risk would be worth taking to avoid pregnancy in the case of rape. If one acts on it quickly, the primary intervention would be working towards preventing a preganancy from happening in the first place.

For myself, with regards to a rape, I myself would take the Plan B in the emergency room, regardless of any testing for ovulation. If I got pregnant anyway, I don’t think I’d take further action, and the ONLY reason why I wouldn’t take action is because I’d be afraid that if this was truly a sin, I’d be in sin. However, I cannot in good conscience deny another woman the right to make that descision. I believe it would be immoral of me to take away a rape victim’s right to defend herself against an forced pregnancy. We live (or are supposed to live) chaste lives, why should a woman not only be raped, but then be forced to become pregnant on top of it? If a woman decides that she would rather risk turning a really horrific bad thing into maybe a good thing by risking pregnancy, that is HER choice, it takes a very special woman, and everyone should support her choice. But if she decides she doesn’t want any part of a pregnancy resulting from rape, that is her choice as well. I thank God every day that this country provides that choice to rape victims (and most do anyway).
Click to expand...
Since babies are not the aggressors, women who become pregnant through rape cannot attack *them; *it is not a situation in which women have a right to “defend” themselves.

The problem is that you are granting the “right” to others of killing an innocent human being. The fact that the unborn baby is very small and hidden does not change the fact that what is happening is the taking of a human life.

From the article which you linked: We must never forget that the child is an innocent human being, made in the image and likeness of God, who did not ask to be conceived.

Also, as Christians, we bear the cross and suffer for the love of God. Consequently, a mother in such a case must love as Christ would truly love, and give life to the innocent child. For a mother who is the victim of the violence of an unjust aggressor to take the life of an innocent unborn child would make her now the unjust aggressor.
 
I posted what I believe, and that’s my life policy. I really have no problem with how others feel about how they live their lives. What’s important to me is that I have a choice. But thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have the right to them, like everyone else 🙂
 
I understand the reluctance to use coercive power to inhibit personal freedom and restrict another person’s choices. (I wish many of our Political Leaders displayed similar qualms.) But if one really believes that life begins at conception then basic human rights and protections must logically begin there also. My suggestion is to mentally substitute a 7 year old into the argument in place of the embryo. If you would use coercion to prevent the murder of the 7 year old but not the embryo, then it seems there must be some difference in the value of the life of the 7 year old and embryo or there is some doubt about when life begins.
 
lizaanne said:
Some folks need to try telling this woman that she should have been sucked out of her mother’s womb and thrown in a garbage can, and that her life didn’t matter because she was conceived in rape. Then ask her own children how they feel about that.

Abortion is wrong. Period. Non-negotiable.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Oh I get it. So the emotions of a couple of people should have control over what everyone else chooses to do. :rolleyes:
 
juliee said:
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don’t want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

LifeNews.com/nat6223.html
Click to expand...
If the mother thinks she is fit to raise such a child and is willing, then I see no reason for the abortion. Otherwise, she should do what is right for her.
 
Holly3278 said:
Oh I get it. So the emotions of a couple of people should have control over what everyone else chooses to do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, the law of God, the creator of the Universe should be given control over what we do. We can choose to sin, to murder and rape and steal, however, that violates God’s law.

You know this to be true.
 
rcjksu said:
I understand the reluctance to use coercive power to inhibit personal freedom and restrict another person’s choices. (I wish many of our Political Leaders displayed similar qualms.) But if one really believes that life begins at conception then basic human rights and protections must logically begin there also. My suggestion is to mentally substitute a 7 year old into the argument in place of the embryo. If you would use coercion to prevent the murder of the 7 year old but not the embryo, then it seems there must be some difference in the value of the life of the 7 year old and embryo or there is some doubt about when life begins.
Click to expand...
Well I guess therein lies the rub. Do your political leaders really believe that life begins at conception? If so, then where is the legislation for extending all child right to a zygote? I suspect, that much like many things in politics, career politicians will say one thing then appease the moderates. However, is a 7yo a good representation for a zygote? Physiologically they’re almost completely different. So I guess that means you’re comparing their souls. However, since my government (USA), should be, secular, the weight of a soul should have no bearing in our law. Just my opinion.
 
lynx said:
If the mother thinks she is fit to raise such a child and is willing, then I see no reason for the abortion. Otherwise, she should do what is right for her.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
  1. What about what’s right for the baby?
  2. Can others resort to murder if it’s “what’s right” for them? For example, can I kill my husband if I decide that’s “what’s right” for me?
 
Rence said:
Fr. William Saunders’ article on rape sums it up for me. I find it completely reasonable and rational - AND moral.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
Click to expand...
I read the article…I’m not sure how it differs from the Bishops’ directives?

Plan B works in 2 ways…inhibit ovulation and inhibit implantation…

If ovulation occured already…then only implantation can be prevented.

You stated that conception can take 36 hours. That would be if ovulation hasn’t occured…the sperm is in the bith canal and the the egg is released some hours later. But if the egg has already been released, it only lives for about 24 hours. Plan B can *only *work by preventing implantation at this point.

I guess if something existed to kill sperm at any point during the cycle, that would be allowed. But if a drug is designed to work in a way specifically to impede implantation, then it couldn’t be allowed.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I read the article…I’m not sure how it differs from the Bishops’ directives?
Click to expand...
It differs (and makes a difference for me ) here in this part, taken from the article written by Fr. Saunders:

A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum.

The Bishop’s article doesn’t include this last part. Right or wrong, according to some on this forum, this is also how I feel about it and I feel strongly about it. I agree with Fr. Saunders.
 
Rence said:
It differs (and makes a difference for me ) here in this part, taken from the article written by Fr. Saunders:

A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum.

The Bishop’s article doesn’t include this last part. Right or wrong, according to some on this forum, this is also how I feel about it and I feel strongly about it. I agree with Fr. Saunders.
Click to expand...
Long story short, this poster is a-okay with abortion as long as the father was a criminal, death penalty for a child because of dad’s crime. This is in direct oppostion to the Church.
 
wanner47 said:
Two questions:
  1. What about what’s right for the baby?
  2. Can others resort to murder if it’s “what’s right” for them? For example, can I kill my husband if I decide that’s “what’s right” for me?
Click to expand...
  1. Does a zygote or fetus have rights? I personally think no, they’re a clump of cells. Certainly the transition from a fetus with no rights to a baby with some rights is a tricky move. At this point I defer judgment to the land of the law and professionals in the field.
  2. That is up to the person. One should adhere to the rule of law as long as it is just, as defined by the community within it. So if killing your husband worked for you, it is not against the law and just, then feel free to kill again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top