It is no matter what people say. You were violated but why should that innocent child, God's creation, be killed? It's not the child's that a woman was brutally raped so it should not have to suffer for her. And if the woman doesn't want the baby it should be adopted.
Pro-life people who say they support rape exceptions are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If abortion is murder then that doesn't change just because the baby's daddy is a rapist. Did the baby rape the mother? No. Of course if you are pro-choice then it's not wrong, it's no different from any other abortion. But if you're pro-life except in cases of rape you are entertaining a logically inconsistent position.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The unfairness of the situation does not change the simple fact that abortion is murder. What's at stake is the unfair temporary discomfort of the mother vs. the unfair permanent death of the child. Instead of abortion, mothers can get help from pro life organizations, who willingly make things as easy as possible during the pregnancy, and after birth, give the child immediately to a waiting couple. This is a far better solution since the child is allowed to live, and the mother can then continue with her life.
Abortion is effectively murder. The foetus is just another developmental stage in its human life. It's still a human! In the case of rape much support should be given to the mother conceiving the baby, so that both the baby won't be murdered and the mother can have as little consequences as possible of bearing the baby.
A society is judged by how it treats it's most defenseless members. It was OK to treat Africans as slaves because theory were legally not human. We know that immediately after the sperm penetrates the egg, this is a future human being, not a tumor, a pile of skin or a parasite.
Assault is not a sufficient excuse to justify murder so why is a woman's short term comfort more important than the life of an child, especially when she has options and can make decisions for herself, unlike the totally dependent unborn child?
Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which made it a “federal offense to kill or injure a child in utero during the commission of another federally prosecutable violent crime.” At the state level abortion is legal.
The value of life becomes determined solely by the woman carrying the fetus. If the woman wants the child, the fetus is a human life and the termination of the pregnancy is aggravated murder. But, if she does not want the child, the fetus is no longer considered a human life and the woman can simply terminate the pregnancy without consequence. Not only does the woman then have full control over the determination of when her unborn baby is a human life and when it is not (which can arbitrarily change from one month to the next without any logic or reason), her decision wholly determines whether or not the termination of her pregnancy is a crime, and one that can be punished by death. What’s worse, the life of the fetus becomes subjective, based only on the woman’s wants, rather than on if the fetus is, in fact, a human life.
In any case of abortion it is the shedding of innocent blood. God gave us all life. If you are raped it is still your responsibility even if it wasn't your fault. People that decide to have the child after rape usually do not regret it. I have know people who are so thankful that they never gave in to the world's point of view.
If a woman is a victim of rape, she is already deeply traumatized and scarred, regardless of whether she is carrying a child or not. If she carries a child, and wants to abort it, and we advocate it, aren't we encouraging her to take revenge? Or worse still, inflicting harm on an innocent third party? Pro-choice advocate has conveniently ruled out other possible ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy because it would be so much more convenient to terminate a pregnancy than to find someone to adopt the child and to convince the rape victim that forgiveness, compassion, and mercy is the best medicine for dealing with their trauma.
Pro-choice advocates call pro-life advocates insensitive to a woman's trauma. It advocates the destruction of a fetus (as science calls it, in other words, an unborn child) because it's a woman's right, because of a woman's trauma, and more ridiculously, because of over-population. Pro-choice advocates have been hammering pro-life advocates about forcing their opinions on others just to feel good about themselves.
All pro-choice care about is rights and fairness. But pro-life cares about the preservation of a human being, whether or not it makes them feel good or not. They care for a human being that is unable to defend itself, one that is redundant, parasitical and traumatizing, as the pro-choice calls it.
Killing a human on top of rape doesn't make the issue any better.
Its a CHILD!
It is NOT a woman's right, because it is the baby's right! Of course the woman had been put through a traumatic experience, but killing the baby would probably add on the the trauma.
If we are basing babies rights by how he or she was conceived, at what legal standpoint can we say " they have no rights because they were a product of insest". Circumstantial abortion should be classified as in if the mother's life is in danger or if the baby isn't viable outside of the mother.
It's sad, and unspeakably hard on the mother, but it's still wrong. The exception is if the mother is not in a state to carry the child and it endangers her life. This includes her being suicidal. What point is there in preventing death by abortion if the mother is at a risk of killing herself and her child with her? I don't know if any studies have been done regarding this, but I would speculate that women who are pregnant due to rape probably have a higher miscarriage rate because of stress.
In my opinion, a woman doesn't need a concrete reason for abortion; it's her body that the fetus will be residing in and her blood that it will be drinking for nine months. No one but her gets to make the call on whether or not she makes the bodily donation necessary to keep the fetus alive. In the case of rape, I personally think that the only intelligent and decent thing to do in that situation is to acquire an abortion. While a forced pregnancy is always an abominable thing, it is particularly revolting in cases where the woman has already once been made a prisoner in her own body---so let's go ahead and add to that trauma a second act of violation and terrible pain on top of the pre-existing horror. I don't think so.
What is abortion compared to plan b or condoms? Its the same thing no matter how much pro life people want to lie abortion doesn't stop a beating heart. The world is already over populated why should a woman raped and scared be forced to keep the baby how any one think they have the right to tell someone to carry a nine month pregnancy because of how you feel. Pro life should be called pro force what if you was the one raped?
I believe if a woman is brutally raped, the first line of action should be a Plan B contraceptive. I believe abortion can be a bad thing, but in the case of a rape victim, early on in a pregnancy, it can be justified. What I do not agree with is carrying a baby to full term and then having it tore to pieces as it is born.
Have you no compassion for women? She has had her body violated in the most horrible way and then you want to violate her body even further by forcing her to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth. Give women options, support, and if she wants to go through with the pregnancy then that's great. If she wants an abortion, then she should get one. The fetus is not the victim, the woman is, and her rights trump the rights of the fetus every time.
If you were a teenager trying to do well at school and looking for a college, wanting to start a career and looking forwards to life then you wouldn't want it ruined by a pregnancy. If you are raped without your consent and impregnated because of this, it's not your fault if you want an abortion and want to get rid of the baby. You want to live your life and get on with it. The baby is not your fault and in the end abortion would be the only option to avoid bullying, pregnancy and your life being ruined by a child.
The victim has lost their choice before, in being forced into a sexual act and ending up pregnant against their will, don't take their choice away from them again by forcing them to carry the fetus to term.
Have the people who said 'yes' even thought about what the victim has gone through? They're going to be the most affected by this; not the fetus! Why would the victim a reminder of that? A reminder of the trauma they've gone through, along with the hormonal changes and pregnancy?
The only time it's okay for a rape victim to carry the fetus to term is if they want to, and if they don't, they shouldn't be forced to.
First of all i agree with abortion even if you are not rape because at the time when women are allowed to get an abortion its not a baby. In harsh terms its a parasite in nicer terms its a plant so the only time you should be against abortion if you have something against killing trees.
I am pro life but i still believe that any woman who is raped and becomes pregnant should be able to decide whether they want to end their pregnancy or not, why should they bring a child to this world if they are not ready to be a mother? And even the baby will end up suffering due to the lack of love and attention he or she needs. Even though there's other options, like adoption I believe it's a woman's choice to decide what to do if she were raped, because her decision will effect HER life, and noone else but her should decide what's best for her.
The mother who is carrying this unwanted baby could face life threatening problems and even death because she's carrying a baby she didnt even intend to have. And why should she be forced to raise a baby she will never love and the baby may just end up neglected or abused. and the mother should just stand there and watch it happen because the worse thing that could ever happen to her happened and the baby is just a prolonged consequence to something that wasn't even her fault.
Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin believes some rapes are "legitimate" and "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" when rapes aren’t. In other words, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, she actually wanted to be raped. Meanwhile, fellow Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen." These Republicans want to deny women the right to terminate pregnancies in cases of rape, for no rational or scientific reason, which is very scary as the next President of America may well be a Republican whose is known to hold extreme religious views.