<p>I don’t mean this critically, mommusic, but I think that you’ve captured perfectly one side of the debate.</p>
<p>Those who believe that abortion should be a choice for those who want it view this as a medical procedure, while those who believe that no one has the right to step in and snuff out human life view it as killing human life.</p>
<p>Anyone know how to bridge that divide?</p>
<p>"Anyone know how to bridge that divide? "</p>
<p>Fire bad?</p>
<p>Creation vs Evolution? </p>
<p>No help here I’m afraid.</p>
<p>
Right…or, in the “valuing” of ALL human life, we dictate that women have babies that they neither want nor will care for, and the precious kids end up with lives like the case histories of girls I taught at a residential facility for wards of the state. Girls who’d been beaten and raped by stepdads. Girls who had been tied to tables and RAPED with broomsticks–by their MOTHER. Girls who had been horribly abused repeatedly by parents and others in EVERY possible way. Girls who were scarred for life. NOT EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T <em>WANT</em> HER BABY GIVES IT UP FOR ADOPTION. Some of them keep the babies and raise them in HELLISH existences. Valuing life? Depends on your definition of “valuing.” </p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>If abortion was used more in just these extreme cases, and not in situations where simple use of birth control would have prevented the pregnancy, then I think there would be less controversy. There are, of course, extreme examples of women who get abortions due to rape and incest. But the vast majority of abortions are done because a woman did not enough foresight to use birth control or abstain. I have found this even when there are extensive resources present for obtaining birth control. Abortion is used as birth control in many instances, and that is what I think fuels a lot of opposition.</p>
<p>
I am <em>NOT</em> in favor of the use of abortion as birth control. Most people are not in favor of this. Nevertheless, I am <em>LESS</em> in favor of someone’s birthing a child that ends up abused, severely neglected, or dead at the hands of his/her parents. IF a woman does not WANT to bear a child, WHY DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT HER TO? 
As a former special ed. teacher who spent all of her time with emotionally handicapped kids in either residential settings or psychiatric hosptials, I can say that my opinion is, with NO reservation whatsoever, that abortion is the LESSER of two evils sometimes. As I’ve said all along, sometimes it’s not a “good” or “bad” choice. Sometimes it’s a choice between bad, worse, and worst.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>I’ve often wondered if abortion would be such a hot button issue if a woman could get pregnant by jogging or eating marshmallows. </p>
<p>Most arguments about it seem eventually break down to control of female sexuality. Sometimes the people who are the most anti-choice insist that rape victims bring it on themselves, etc.</p>
<p>In Arkansas, the religious right, the “pro-life” crowd, smeared a 17 year old rape victim and mounted a campaign to get her attacker freed from prision. Within six weeks, he had killed two women.</p>
<p>ETA: This is not directed at anyone here, but I’ve often wondered if the more virulent folks would be so passionate about the situation if sexuality were removed from the equation.</p>
<p>
Ok let’s go with your example, except lets make is relevant to the Supreme Court case dealing with partial birth abortion and NOT FIRST TRIMESTER ABORTIONS which are protected by Roe v. Wade. So instead of the girl being two months along lets say she is eight months along. She just came back from a several month trip and is afraid to confront her parents. She is certain she wants to abort the child before meeting her parents. Her doctor supports her decision. Do you believe she should have the right to make that decision regardless of what the government thinks? Answer that one.</p>
<p>
You are also the guy who thinks anyone who opposed your view is a neocon. Get real. Nobody thinks rape victims bring it on themselves.</p>
<p>
Are there any pro-lifers on this thread who do not feel a woman should abort a child who is the product of rape or incest? I’m just wondering. And if you DO make this exception, is not that child’s life worth something? After all, it’s <em>only</em> the mother’s psychological health that is at stake here, provided the pregnancy is a normal one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I beg your pardon? No one thinks this? </p>
<p>You are sadly, sadly, misinformed about the way society treats rape victims. </p>
<p>Why not research the issue and find out the facts?</p>
<p>Extreme cases make for bad law. (and it wouldn’t matter what side of the abortion debate one is on.)</p>
<p>
It is not just in America where this happens. I don’t have the stats but I recall reading that a signifcant number of Russian women have had abortions. An interesting article appeared in the Wall Street Journal a week or so ago saying that machines that take ultrasounds are very popular in India because many families want to know the sex of their child. If the child is a girl, they abort, given the high cost to parents of having female children.</p>
<p>Conyat, I’m pretty sure I can find a quote or two on CC with posters coming very close to blaming rape/sexual abuse victims.</p>
<p>Yes, I was just reviewing some of them. So sad.</p>
<p>
You made the claim not me. How about you put up or shut up. Maybe you can find someone in your neck of the woods but to associate those who are prolife with those who believe rape victims bring it on themselves is simply silly and just another cheap shot.</p>
<p>
I doubt it. Go ahead and try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see. You think it’s a rural thing or a Southern thing? Again, you’re mistaken. Rural Southerners really aren’t the way you see them on TV comedies. Those are characters; charicatures, even. </p>
<p>I don’t need to “put up or shut up” because any reasonably educated and well read person would be aware of the hostility frequented directed at rape victims by individuals in the anti-choice movement. </p>
<p>As corranged points out, there are posts even on this board. Here is a quote from one of them “Do not advertise what you don’t intend to sell”.</p>
<p>Conyat, “neck of the woods” is a phrase. I didnt’ really mean in the woods as in some rural place and I have no idea where you live. I would suggest your perception is based on whatever the facts are in your area and your perception is either unique or flat out wrong. I can’t recall ever speaking with anyone who though rape victims brough it on themselves. I believe you cannot support your assertion by showing any coorelation between those who are prolife and those who think rape victims bring in on themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/justworld.html[/url]”>http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/justworld.html</a></p>
<p>hmmm. Seriously? “They brought it on themselves” is the oldest argument in the book. In fact it’s often essentially the argument (couched in more acceptable terms) used by the defense in rape prosecutions, because that’s their only argument in a day and age where DNA evidence proves that intercourse in fact happened. So it has to be painted as something invited, and sometimes it goes quite far. They’ll use underwear as evidence and say it’s racy or something. I read a very interesting article on this a few years ago. Many rape cases are dropped and some experts suggest they feel it’s because of this. </p>
<p>At any rate though, everyone who gets pregnant from rape doesn’t abort, and if they do, I doubt they decide randomly at 8.5 months. That’s relatively ridiculous. I doubt there can or should really be a question here of whether women go through these procedures for kicks because they have nothing better to do. That doesn’t necessarily make things right but late term abortions are not performed because a week before the due date, the father leaves and the mother wants revenge. Please. First of all I would imagine women have evolutionary or God given or whatever you want to call it, impulses that are contrary to that. Otherwise we wouldn’t have survived as a species because there are plenty of ways to get rid of a baby but this only happens in the most extreme cases. </p>
<p>I don’t like the idea of late term abortions. But it’s rather idealistic to suggest the baby should just be delivered extremely early (viability just means survival, not they’ve developed normally and won’t have severe problems), and then everyone should just go on and have a happy life. You’ll go on and have a happy life because frankly you have nothing to do with it, but the severely developmentally delayed child gets to bounce through the foster care system because really, people aren’t breaking down the doors to adopt lots of kinds of children. It’s terribly difficult for me to justify a lifetime of pain if there is no one who wants a child at birth and no real odds they will be adopted. I’m not saying these children don’t deserve life, because I’d keep or take a disabled child in a heartbeat. But not everyone has the same situation where they feel equipped to do that. And until there are more people willing to adopt less than perfect children, I can’t justify setting people up for a lifetime of emotional pain. But I don’t know. It’s very difficult. Mainly because there are no two situations with the same factors - this is such a complex situation with complex problems and complex emotions. It’s so difficult to say, it is mainly speculation and who knows. I think we’ve dropped the balls on a lot of ways to prevent abortions before we even get to that point. The pro choice, pro life debate is so polarizing that we’ve missed the instance for cooperation that would benefit both sides. I hate to think that people just want to argue and really don’t care if there’s never a solution, but we seem to have to reached that point. No one changes, no one cares, same old arguments, and no one DOES anything to actually render the question less relevant.</p>