Can a rape victim determine the value of their unborn child?

[JacksBratt]

I always say a mother cannot put a value on the baby because the baby also had no choice in its creation. A mother that chooses to abort is basically punishing the child and thus a murderer.

I wish I could give this a 10 x winner rating.

 

[JacksBratt]

Think about this for a minute: Girls and women who know they are not able to raise a child in any way or do what it takes to get ready for one are aware the baby will suffer, not just themselves. Every state that passes anti-abortion legislation totally ignores this and fails to help the mother and baby. The state, not a young mother, is responsible if her baby is born and has a horrible life throughout childhood.

Ah..... one word.... adoption....... end of story.

Many many many married couples are living without children due to medical issues.... They are dying to raise children with love and comfort of a home and the opportunity to live.

 

[JacksBratt]

NUF, I am not making up any excuses. The problems that lead aped girls and women to choose abortions are real. Adoption is only an option if they are mentally and physically able to stay pregnant all 9 months. You probably do not realize adopting out babies when they are born is easier said than done and in many places almost impossible.

What is really ironic... is the things you post..... and your signature statement.

 

[bekkilyn]

It is God's design that humankind gives live birth, so yes the child has a right, God has given it that right.

God has also given humankind stewardship over all of creation, so we have the right to choose how to use and distribute the resources we are given. All throughout creation, there is culling and pruning for the sake of life. It is not mandatory, even by God, that all life must grow.

See, since abortion is never addressed anywhere in scripture, we can read whatever we like into it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sorry, but this is a disgusting comment. I've known for much of my life a local pastor and his wife who have fostered probably 30+ kids of all ages over the years, and they have kids themselves too. The foster kids that have grown up with the family have (pretty much in the majority) had their lives turned around, felt love and acceptance like never before, and have gone on to have great careers and beautiful families of their own.

How did you not understand I was saying kids don't deserve to be bounced around from one foster home to another, as opposed to knowing the same family their entire lives, whether they are with the biological or adoptive parents? It is not about which family they live with, but how many, as kids are moved around to different homes by adoption agencies instead of actually adopted by a single family? When people say, "I don't want this kid anymore," the kid will be less likely to succeed in life than those 30+ kids.

I don't know where people get the audacity to believe that they can dictate what the acceptable parameters are for life. Some people even take it as far as claiming abortion is acceptable to save kids from growing up in a poor environment! Absolutely mental.

I don't know the word audacity. I also don't know why you assume pro-choice people want to dictate pro-life people. The opposite is true: pro-lifers want to push theology against legal and biological information. Christians have no business proclaiming their faith controls the law in a country that was founded on total religious freedom (see hte First Amendment), which is what pro-life people do. Pro-choice people are not, and never have been or will be, pro-abortion. They just know it is immoral to force rape victims to carry a baby to term against her will and religious beliefs.

 

[Quasiblogo]

One must back up to ask, in order, three other questions: (1) Has God asked us to make decisions without seeking His guidance, particularly from the Scriptures (2) If He has not, then what value does He place on the unborn, and lastly (3) How does that value extend to all conditions of pregnancy, including (a) rape (b) incest (c) physical danger to the mother. To me, 3(c) comes the closest a reason that God could condone abortion (but I am not a teacher and could be wrong). I cringe to think of rape/incest victims, but I cannot divorce my inner debate from the status of the child. I do think God's heart is also with the child in those instances (must the child pay for the crime of the raper or sinful parent?). Hard questions and hard answers concerning 3 are, what I think, causes some to take the more convenient way out the debate by insisting an unborn is not a human.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What is really ironic... is the things you post..... and your signature statement.

It is not ironic if you consider "everyone" includes the mother. Pro-lifers insist raped girls and women who tried to avoid having babies should just put up with a lot of crap like they are worthless and less valuable. Not God - He wants them to be happy and healthy because He loves them and they are as valuable as an unborn baby. It sickens me that pro-lifers think it is better to let the mother suffer than her child who she will give up anyway.

 

[bekkilyn]

How did you not understand I was saying kids don't deserve to be bounced around from one foster home to another, as opposed to knowing the same family their entire lives, whether they are with the biological or adoptive parents? It is not about which family they live with, but how many, as kids are moved around to different homes by adoption agencies instead of actually adopted by a single family? When people say, "I don't want this kid anymore," the kid will be less likely to succeed in life than those 30+ kids.

I don't know the word audacity. I also don't know why you assume pro-choice people want to dictate pro-life people. The opposite is true: pro-lifers want to push theology against legal and biological information. Christians have no business proclaiming their faith controls the law in a country that was founded on total religious freedom (see hte First Amendment), which is what pro-life people do. Pro-choice people are not, and never have been or will be, pro-abortion. They just know it is immoral to force rape victims to carry a baby to term against her will and religious beliefs.

This thread has done nothing to lessen my view that the so-called "pro-life" movement has very little to do with life and everything to do with punishment and control.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This thread has done nothing to lessen my view that the so-called "pro-life" movement has very little to do with life and everything to do with punishment and control.

The pro-lifers are ther ones who want control. Pro-choice means the opposite: don't control us, let us.

 

[eucatastrophe]

God has also given humankind stewardship over all of creation, so we have the right to choose how to use and distribute the resources we are given. All throughout creation, there is culling and pruning for the sake of life. It is not mandatory, even by God, that all life must grow.

See, since abortion is never addressed anywhere in scripture, we can read whatever we like into it.

But is this the proper take? Does stewardship extend to murder? Because, the unlawful taking of a human life is just that. There is no such thing in the natural world. We cannot murder an animal. The killing of an animal may be cruel, wanton and unfair, but it is never murder as animals are not moral beings, no matter how much we may love and care for them. But does pretending an unborn child is not human mitigate that? I am not arguing for a ban on all abortions, but a Christian must face this issue. Sometimes the taking of life must happen in this fallen world. But where do we draw the line? In the matters of rape or medical issues, that decision should rest with the parents (or in the case of rape,with the mother) But if the issue is simply on of convenience or fear for what will happen to the child later in life...what gives anyone that right to set life aside? Life has many thorns but also roses now and again.

 

[bekkilyn]

But is this the proper take? Does stewardship extend to murder? Because, the unlawful taking of a human life is just that. There is no such thing in the natural world. We cannot murder an animal. The killing of an animal may be cruel, wanton and unfair, but it is never murder as animals are not moral beings, no matter how much we may love and care for them. But does pretending an unborn child is not human mitigate that? I am not arguing for a ban on all abortions, but a Christian must face this issue. Sometimes the taking of life must happen in this fallen world. But where do we draw the line? In the matters of rape or medical issues, that decision should rest with the parents (or in the case of rape,with the mother) But if the issue is simply on of convenience or fear for what will happen to the child later in life...what gives anyone that right to set life aside? Life has many thorns but also roses now and again.

There are plenty of cases where human life is killed, including in scripture, that is not considered to be murder. It is killing, yes, but murder, no. Is it truly responsible stewardship to allow and encourage ALL life that is conceived to grow and be born, even at great cost to the life already existing? Can we truly make that choice for another person, or even worse, give that choice over to governmental control? What other medical decisions are we to allow the government to control? Whether or not we remove life support from someone who can only remain technically alive by machinery?

I am not pro-abortion. I would personally encourage someone to continue to carry the child if it is at all feasible to do so, but the choice is still up to her. I am not the one who will be paying her medical bills or putting my own life in danger through pregnancy complications.

 

[GodLovesCats]

But is this the proper take? Does stewardship extend to murder? Because, the unlawful taking of a human life is just that. There is no such thing in the natural world. We cannot murder an animal. The killing of an animal may be cruel, wanton and unfair, but it is never murder as animals are not moral beings, no matter how much we may love and care for them. But does pretending an unborn child is not human mitigate that? I am not arguing for a ban on all abortions, but a Christian must face this issue. Sometimes the taking of life must happen in this fallen world. But where do we draw the line? In the matters of rape or medical issues, that decision should rest with the parents (or in the case of rape,with the mother) But if the issue is simply on of convenience or fear for what will happen to the child later in life...what gives anyone that right to set life aside? Life has many thorns but also roses now and again.

I stopped reading at the bold sentence. I would get banned if I said what I want to about it.

 

[redleghunter]

If there are so many families out there just waiting to adopt, then why haven't they done it yet? There are plenty of children out there, who often spend an average of 3 years in the foster care system, who are waiting to be adopted and yet why are they all still there? Why doesn't anyone want *them*? You would think that with all of these hypothetical parents out there desperate for children, there wouldn't be anyone out there waiting to be adopted as they would be snapped up immediately.

There are controls (most good for the child) that slow down the process:

For domestic infant adoption, there are far more people in this country looking to adopt than there are babies placed every year. With international adoption, the ratio of children placed has slowed as countries have improved their foster care system. With the domestic infant adoption process, it generally entails the expectant mother selecting a family. For example, if there are 30 families waiting with an agency and only 15 birth parents who place with them every year, the odds are you may wait over a year before an expectant mother connects with your profile and matches with you.

Some agencies limit the number of clients they take on per year, and some places accept more than others. When you are choosing an agency or a lawyer, don’t just ask how many placements they did last year, ask how many waiting adoptive families there were.

While the adoption process can be emotionally difficult as well as time-consuming, if you invest in the process and are willing to wait, you will successfully be able to adopt. While it can be difficult not to know when or how the child will come, if you choose competent and ethical professionals it will happen, you may need to have some patience.
​

 

[JacksBratt]

It is not ironic if you consider "everyone" includes the mother. Pro-lifers insist raped girls and women who tried to avoid having babies should just put up with a lot of crap like they are worthless and less valuable. Not God - He wants them to be happy and healthy because He loves them and they are as valuable as an unborn baby. It sickens me that pro-lifers think it is better to let the mother suffer than her child who she will give up anyway.

The mother may suffer for a while... the baby... will lose it's life.

If you think that carrying an unborn child of a rapist... or for whatever other reason you can think of that would justify, in your mind, to end a life... Then you are very young, or have had a very easy life.

Life is hard... get used to it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The mother may suffer for a while... the baby... will lose it's life.

If you think that carrying an unborn child of a rapist... or for whatever other reason you can think of that would justify, in your mind, to end a life... Then you are very young, or have had a very easy life.

Life is hard... get used to it.

I am 42 and disabled.

 

[Davidnic]

The pro-lifers are ther ones who want control. Pro-choice means the opposite: don't control us, let us.

I don't know to think that it's okay to take the life of a voiceless innocent is pretty controlling.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't know to think that it's okay to take the life of a voiceless innocent is pretty controlling.

That has nothing to do with hte post you quoted.

 

[Davidnic]

Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault

This is a pretty good book on the topic. It was recommended to me over and over by pregnant rape survivors that I've encountered in the pro-life movement over the years.

From the description:

"This compelling new book addressing these complex issues in a clear and insightful manner. Drawn from a survey of nearly 200 women who have experienced rape or incest pregnancies, Victims and Victors reveals a seldom-heard truth: that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not want abortions."

From some of the women:

"Often I cry. Cry because I could not stop the attacks. Cry because my daughter is dead. And I cry because it still hurts."
Edith Young

"I think that rape victims with pregnancies are discriminated against because people seem to think you're nuts to have a baby by a man who raped you. We are looked upon as being liars, or stupid."
Sharon"Bailey"

"They say abortion is the easy way out, the best thing for everyone, but they are wrong. It has been over 15 years, and I still suffer." "Rebecca Morris"

 

[Davidnic]

That has nothing to do with hte post you quoted.

Sure does. Pro-choice is the choice to do what: To kill an innocent.

You have to define the choice. People want a choice, the choice to do what?

To say that choice does not exert control over another is simply not true. The pro-choice movement is far more about control than pro-life. The pro-life movement is, as Alveda King puts it, a civil rights movement.

That it is about control of a woman's body is a red herring from the pro-choice movement to distract from the fact that someone is being killed.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sure does. Pro-choice is the choice to do what: To kill an innocent.

You have to define the choice. People want a choice, the choice to do what?

To say that choice does not exert control over another is simply not true. The pro-choice movement is far more about control than pro-life. The pro-life movement is, as Alveda King puts it, a civil rights movement.

That it is about control of a woman's body is a red herring from the pro-choice movement to distract from the fact that someone is being killed.

Pro-choice means literally just that: the government can't control what women do with their bodies.