Election Question

[Papa Schlumpf]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha No I wouldn't, and telling them they can't have an abortion wouldn't deny them their lives. It would change the direction their lives are going. IMO when you choose to have sex, protected or otherwise, you agree to the risk of getting pregnant, planned or not. To end a life, established or potential, just because it interferes with your plans is wrong. As I've said before, the only time I consent to the idea of an abortion is when the mothers life is endangered. At no other time would I see it as a responsible, or correct option. You're free to disagree with me, but you won't convince me otherwise.

So how about rape?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Luvian Birth control isn't infallible. A couple who did use protection could very well ends up with an unwanted pregnancy. A woman who choses "no" with birth control could still ends up pregnant. How can that be a real choice?

There are only about 9 days during any month that a woman can become pregnant (approximately 5 days before and 3 days after ovulation). For many women, this "window" is even smaller.

There are numerous birth control methods with varying effective rates.
Implantable rod - 99% effective
IUD - 99% effective
Shot/injection (Depro-Provera) - 99% effective
Oral contraceptive (various types) - 95% effective
Skin patch - 95% effective
Vaginal ring - 95% effective
Male condom - 84-89% effective
Diaphragm w/spermicide - 85% effective

These effective rates are based on each method being the sole method used. If methods are combined (such as male condom and diaphragm), the effective rate will be increased.

If the woman simply chooses NOT to have sex of any kind for roughly 1 week period around ovulation, she cannot get pregnant. If she decides she does want to have sex during that period, there are a plethora of birth control options available to prevent an unwanted pregnancy occurring.

In other words, the woman has several choices she can make about her sexual behavior to prevent having an unwanted pregnancy.

"But forcing her to restrict her activity isn't fair?" - Why not? It is just as fair as an employer forcing you to restrict your desire to consume alcohol until after business hours when your job performance won't be affected.

The point is that the woman DOES have a choice BEFORE any pregnancy ever occurs and the numbers clearly indicate that the great majority of abortions are nothing more than "after-the-fact birth control". Once a woman decides to have unprotected sex during ovulation, I feel she has forfeited the "right" to decide to kill the baby that might result from that particular "choice".

Please note, that does NOT include the 7% of cases in which the woman either could NOT make a choice about the sexual intercourse or her health would be in danger if she had the baby. Those are legitimate reasons for the woman to decide "after the fact". But the data shows us that this is the case in only a very tiny percentage of abortions performed.

I do not advocate banning abortion completely. I most assuredly DO advocate placing restrictions on abortions so that the woman has to exercise her "choice" BEFORE an innocent victim's life hangs in the balance of the choice she makes.

[Luvian]

Firestormalpha. I was talking about the rape victims and the women at risk for their life. Are you saying they chose to be raped and/or have unforeseen medical complications?

Cerek you make some good points. I have heard of some married women who do not use traditional birth control and instead use planed parenthood, I believe it is called. Basically it's what you descibe. They monitor their ovulation cycle and plan around that.

Mind you I personally think that alone is too risky and I'd use some other form of birth control on top of it if it was me, but the system does seem to be a valid form of birth control.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Papa Schlumpf So how about rape?

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha As I've said before, the only time I consent to the idea of an abortion is when the mothers life is endangered. At no other time would I see it as a responsible, or correct option.

My apologies Luvian, I misread that portion of your post.
While I can't see it as correct to ban abortions for reasons of rape or medical complications, I do feel it should be discouraged by the doctors and/or counselors for any reason other than a threat to the mothers life.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Papa Schlumpf So how about rape?

Yes that 1%
So make an exception.
Except then any woman that wants abortion will claim rape.
The fetus didn't rape anyone.
Yet they pay with their life.
Nevermind that having the baby actually helps heal the woman.
Nevermind that aborting the baby compounds the trauma.
Ignore those stats in making your decision, I mean why start looking at stats now?

The FACT is human life starts at conception. Scientifically proven.

Yes rape may result in pregnancy. That should make us more intolerant of rape, not ruin women's lives further by aborting their kid as a result.

The thing is people seem unable to grasp parallel truths, persisting in seeing black and white like they are newborns not yet comprehending colour.

1. A woman's life is not ruined by having a child.
2. A babies life is ruined by being aborted.

Even given that a woman's life is adversely affected by having a kid, who is affected more? The woman who's life plan is now wildly different, or the baby who doesn't have a life to plan?

We cannot control all events in our lives. Trying to undo the consequential purpose of sex from doing what it's meant to do - create life - is such a collectively egocentric delusion about human control over life that only prevents people from accepting the truth.

[Luvian]

Well, an unemployed single young woman with a rape baby to take care of really does a really horrible life ahead of her. Not only can't she feed herself but now she's got a baby to feed and take care of on top of it, and getting a job/education when there's no one at home to take care of the starving kid is really hard. Add the fact that her emotional wounds will reopen every times she sees the child and she's in for a really bad life. Ruined? I don't know, but certainly not a life I would wish on anyone...

I don't know how adoptions laws are either here or in the USA, but I think what we need is a "no questions asked" right to give your upcoming kid to adoption. You don't like the gender? Give him up for adoption. You got raped? Give him up for adoption. Can't afford having a kid? Give him up etc.

Sure many parents would give up their future kids to avoid responsibility but it's already what they're doing. At least this way the kid would be alive.

[Firestormalpha]

Actually some states here have what's called a safe haven law. A parent can leave their child (up to a certain age) at any state run hospital, just leave them at the entrance, and it's no questions asked.

[SpiritWarrior]

Which I actually think is a great alternative to aborting a child. At least those kids get a chance. Many women who have unwanted pregnancies fear the law if they actually go ahead with the pregnancy and birth.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Luvian Well, an unemployed single young woman with a rape baby to take care of really does a really horrible life ahead of her. Not only can't she feed herself but now she's got a baby to feed and take care of on top of it, and getting a job/education when there's no one at home to take care of the starving kid is really hard. Add the fact that her emotional wounds will reopen every times she sees the child and she's in for a really bad life. Ruined? I don't know, but certainly not a life I would wish on anyone... I don't know how adoptions laws are either here or in the USA, but I think what we need is a "no questions asked" right to give your upcoming kid to adoption. You don't like the gender? Give him up for adoption. You got raped? Give him up for adoption. Can't afford having a kid? Give him up etc. Sure many parents would give up their future kids to avoid responsibility but it's already what they're doing. At least this way the kid would be alive.

An unemployed single mother will automatically qualify for food stamps to feed her and her child (unless she has a significant amount of money or assets - which most of them don't). Her child will automatically qualify for Medicaid and the mother will likely qualify as well. That means almost 100% FREE medical care. The mother will also qualify for Day Care Assistance, which will pay the cost of child care while she is at work or in school. She and her child will also be eligible for housing assistance and qualify for community housing.

That doesn't make the situation great, but the state WILL provide for the basic needs of her and her family. She WILL be expected to do HER part to find a job or continue her education as well. But the state will help her until she can stand on her own.

Whether seeing the "rape child" every day will have a healing or harmful effect on the mom can't really be generalized. It would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some women would be healed by raising the child, but I can certainly see the potential for the child to be abused because he/she reminds the mom of the rape and mom lashes out at the child for what happened to her. That one can go either way, IMHO.

I agree completely that putting the child up for adoption is a FAR better option than abortion under ANY circumstance. I can only hope our country undertakes an effort to promote adoption over abortion and educate women about the many options available to them.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Luvian Well, an unemployed single young woman with a rape baby to take care of really does a really horrible life ahead of her. Not only can't she feed herself but now she's got a baby to feed and take care of on top of it, and getting a job/education when there's no one at home to take care of the starving kid is really hard. Add the fact that her emotional wounds will reopen every times she sees the child and she's in for a really bad life. Ruined? I don't know, but certainly not a life I would wish on anyone... I don't know how adoptions laws are either here or in the USA, but I think what we need is a "no questions asked" right to give your upcoming kid to adoption. You don't like the gender? Give him up for adoption. You got raped? Give him up for adoption. Can't afford having a kid? Give him up etc. Sure many parents would give up their future kids to avoid responsibility but it's already what they're doing. At least this way the kid would be alive.

Are you speaking from experience or theoretically?

I know 4 women who have been raped. 2 got pregnant, one when she was 11. Her daughter, 12 years younger than her is a gorgeous girl, and everyone did fine. Grandparents helped raise both Mum and daughter (at 11 she was still at home) and both are two of the most beautifully spirited women I've met.

Sometimes bad stories have a happy ending. There is no way her Mum can look at her daughter and regret the rape, because such a beautiful person resulted.

The other girl who was raped was older, and had the baby, and from all accounts they're doing fine too.

So, as those are my two experiences, I cannot see how rape is a reason to kill the innocent child.

If it's a huge problem, there's always adoption - the forgotten solution. There are NOT ENOUGH KIDS TO MEET ADOPTION DEMAND.

It's a tragedy that while kids are being killed there are couples who would give anything to take the child off their hands.

Finally, I know a number of women who aborted. One twice. 100% of them bitterly regretted it, but felt like they had no choice. One destroyed her womb and couldn't have kids. The other never had kids either. The one who aborted twice, just had a baby and is no fervently prolife.

Interestingly "Jane Roe" is pro-life and instigating legal proceedings to repeal the lawsuit in her name.

So is Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL who pushed abortion to be legalised, and then, with the invention of the ultrasound, realised to his horror, he'd killed 75,000 humans.