What
is Abortion and who chooses abortion
“Abortion
is a way to end pregnancy. Sometimes, an embryo or fetus
stops developing and the body expels it. This is called
spontaneous abortion or "miscarriage." A woman can also choose
to end a pregnancy. This is called induced abortion. There are three ways it can be
done — with medicine, vacuum aspiration, or surgery.
The chances are high that a woman will have more than one unplanned
pregnancy in the course of her lifetime. Nearly half
of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time
they are 45 years old. More than six million women in
the U.S. become pregnant every year. Half of those pregnancies
are unintended. And 1.31 million end in abortion. The
most common reasons a woman chooses abortion are:
She
is not ready to become a parent.
She
cannot afford a baby.
She doesn't want to be a single parent.
She doesn't want anyone to know she has had sex or
is pregnant.
She is too young or too immature to have a child.
She has all the children she wants.
Her husband, partner, or parent wants her to have
an abortion.
She or the fetus has a health problem.
She was a survivor of rape or incest” (plannedparenthood.org).
“On
January 22, 1973, in the famous Roe vs. Wade case, the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down all laws in every state
that in any way had protected the lives of developing
unborn children. It legalized abortion in all 50 states.”
Life
begun and hence murder is obvious, for you can only
really kill something that is alive
If you
boil it down to the “nitty-gritty” it becomes obvious
that this is murder, because murder can only take place
on something that is alive: As in termination of life.
If you took a cord and tied it around my childhood teddy
bear, hung him and said you killed it, you haven’t killed
it because it was never alive. Now, can the same be
said of the abortions done? Was the fetus or baby removed
a lifeless teddy bear that no life was terminated for
it to take place. If so, then abortion is okay, for
you would be removing unwanted filth from the body,
much like how you dodo. But it is not so, for life was
present, growing and if not terminated would become
a full grown adult someday. Hence, if life begun and
it was purposely ended, then the act of murder was carried
out on another human being. I used some strong terms,
like “Alive.” Can the baby in womb be considered alive?
One definition states, “Alive
means that this being is growing, developing, maturing,
and replacing its own dying cells. It means not being
dead” (abortionfacts.com). This is certainly true of any fetus and
we need not go into any other definitions, as in “Person”
or “Human.” For being alive, constitute being a person
and a human, for the fetus is not a dog fetus in a human
mother, God forbid, it’s a human; and if it’s not a
person, what is it, a tadpole?
Without
any scientific or religious data or any form of empiricism,
we have unequivocally established that the fetus in
the mother’s belly is a human person or life – from
a few seconds old to 9 months old. Now, if we give the
right for someone to kill that human life under the
notion of “Choice,” aren’t we still discriminating?
For if I can kill a human only when it is in its mother’s
belly and not any other time, isn’t that discrimination.
I should be able to kill any human at any time, or,
no human at no time. You cannot pull the “Choice” card
and yet breed double standard. The Choice card would
then be a pretext. You wouldn’t be pro-choice, but pro-discrimination.
We
are allowing discrimination against an entire classes
of living humans to be put to death at will. That is
wrong! We should instead grant equal protection by law
to all living humans in our nation. We can’t protect
the abused child about to die by the next hit from her
father, because she cannot defend herself and not defend
the unborn fetus because they too cannot defend themselves.
We can’t have a double standard, that in itself is unconstitutional
and wrong legislatively and morally. We should be upholding
the said right for every human life at any stage, in
the “pouch” or out of “pouch!”
This erroneous bias is an evil that will ultimately lead to another
evil now denounced – selective baby production. You
fertilize eggs in the womb, under genetics it is manipulated,
you watch it grow in the womb and if it doesn’t fit
your criteria you terminated it; and continue doing
that until you get that green eye, green hair, tan skinned,
one sex (male or female) or two sex (male and female),
white facial hair baby you and the genetic doctors are
trying to make. But wait, didn’t the communist irreligious
China take a step towards this and thus prove my theory
correct? I can see it now, genetic doctors get so popular
that they can determine the sexual orientation of your
baby and if you don’t want a faggot in the family, you
can abort the baby; though no genetics can never determine
that, because it’s not genetic. Don’t you see that we
are heading down the wrong road, 2) playing GOD 3) Upholding
partiality to murder 4) Double standards of the law
to suit your need 5) Out right MURDER of the innocent
that was destined to be born. This Pro-Choice compost
is biased, unconstitutional, unlawful, could be a conspiracy
orchestrated for the abominable selective baby production
and permitting murder. One person noted,
“Never,
in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen
the absolute legal right to have another killed in order
to solve their own personal, social or economic problem.
And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme Court
Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in
other nations do all of the above. They represent a
complete about-face, a total rejection of one of the
core values of Western man, and an acceptance of a new
ethic in which life has only a relative value. No longer
will every human have a right to live simply because
he or she exists. A human will now be allowed to exist
only if he measures up to certain standards of independence,
physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others.
This is a momentous change that strikes at the root
of Western civilization. It makes no difference to vaguely
assume that human life is more human post-born than
pre-born. What is critical is to judge it to be — or
not to be — human life. By a measure of "more"
or "less" human, one can easily and logically
justify infanticide and euthanasia. By the measure of
economic and/or social usefulness, the ghastly atrocities
of Hitlerian mass murders came to be. One cannot help
but be reminded of the anguished comment of a condemned
Nazi judge, who said to an American judge after the
Nuremberg trials, ‘I never knew it would come to this’.
The American judge answered simply, ‘It came to this
the first time you condemned an innocent life’” (abortionfacts.com).
Speaking of “came to this,” this is trickery the Pro-Choicers have
done why their campaign has come to this “success”;
they have played upon the falling morals and godly Christian
foundations of our nation. Notice,
They
changed the question. Unable to win debating the issue
as they saw it on pro-life terms, they cleverly changed
the question. They changed it from "Is abortion
right or wrong"? to "Who decides, the woman
or the government? We believe that the government should
stay out of this very private matter. The real question
here is about a woman’s right to choose." It takes
only a moment to realize that this is an entirely different
question. Over a period of several years, by paid advertisements,
by all pro-abortion leaders using the same party line,
and by the enthusiastic cooperation of the liberal media,
they largely succeeded in changing the terms of the
debate.
You see the folly, they were losing the battle with the Public, because
everyone saw that abortion is bad and wrong, so they
moved from ethics and good morals (Christianity) to
playing the law books and allege civil rights. So how
did they get away with murder, legalizing the killing
of babies and also subverting the laws of the land?
Because if they use the argument, “Who decides, the
woman or the government? We believe that the government
should stay out of this very private matter,” on killing
a life (abortion) then for justice to prevail, I should
be able to use that same twisting with my relatives.
It’s my 6-year-old daughter, I have a right, who should
decide if I want to rape her or kill her, the parent
or the government, the government should stay out of
this very private matter? Seeing that the child in the
womb is a living human being, he or she should be protected
in the same way any other child is protect and shouldn’t
allow an irresponsible parent to kill their child or
another human being. After giving the speech, my teacher
related the story of a woman he knows that had an abortion
because she bought a non-refundable world travel ticket
for a cruise and wouldn’t be able to fit in her bikini.
How blatantly obvious can this pro-choice compost be.
So you see what the pro-Choicers and it’s agenda really
is, if allowed, probably the same freedom will be given
to the man who wants to rape and kill his 6-year-old
daughter. The Pro-Choicers failed when it came to the
conscience of the people and diverted their efforts
under a pre-text of rights; which is really false, and
hence abortion sanctioning should be considered unconstitutional.
Our founding fathers made this statement when this nation
began, which is held throughout most nations, "we
hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are
created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights — of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness." If that is to be true,
and we all have these rights, it must be applicable
to the life and liberty of the “unborn” being protected
from abortion, or else such a statement under the abortion
sanctioning has become futile, along with the law books.
The unborn has rights too, being humans and foremost
among them is their protection from murder, even if
it is their own parents. Those who have an ear to hear,
with the respective “powers,” shouldn’t let this go
unnoticed, but bring back justice, non-partiality and
good sense.
To make this argument even more valuable, is an excerpt from The
Divine, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified
thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”
(Jer 1:5). So it’s obvious that a termination of
life in the belly of a woman is not a light thing, for
that person’s life meant something to God and could
very well be planned for great things. Another example
is also found in the bible, this time not of a prophet
but an irreligious secular King of Babylon, Cyrus. It
reads, “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd,
and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem,
Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation
shall be laid” (Isa 44:28). This was clear word from
God of a man who would set the Israelites free to return
to Jerusalem and re-build their temple. But notice how
accurate things are planned and how things really are,
hundreds of years (701 B.C) before this actually happened
(538 B.C) the man’s actual name was given. Nothing,
not even science, can get more accurate than that. The
actual name of the man, Cyrus, was given before he was
born; and also what he would do. According to Easton
Bible dictionary, he “was a conqueror of Babylon, and
issued the decree of liberation to the Jews (Ezr 1:1-2).
Cyrus was a great military leader, bent on universal
conquest. Babylon fell before his army on the night
of Belshazzar's feast (Dan 5:30), and then the ancient
dominion of Assyria was also added to his empire.” Think
what would happen if he was aborted, Israel wouldn’t
have gone free and the second temple built. So, both
the so-called ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are orchestrated to be
born by God and each man’s destiny begins before the
womb, but his life begins there and can be terminated
there. To terminate his life from the womb under “choice,”
is to terminate his purpose, which is simply apart of
a greater purpose. These bloody doctors are playing
God at the authorization of our legislature. Will God
be silent on the matter? Ironically, as you have been
doing, you be the judge.
My school history text teaches that Andrew Jackson formed one of
the oldest political party in America – the Democrats
in the 1800’s. As the 7th president of the
U.S.A. also, he outlined one of the essence of the U.S.A
and democratic countries, “equal protection and equal
benefits.” This mirrors what I’ve saying, if the killing
of humans in the womb is permitted, then the killing
of humans (children, uncles, sisters, etc) outside the
womb must also be permitted for “equal protection and
equal benefits” and unbiased legislature to foster;
the essence of the republic and constitution. We can’t
have the latter, so we must prohibit the killing of
babies in the womb (abortion) for equality to exist.
The
case of the terminally ill choice to die (Scivo's Death
Revisited)
You might say that a responsible adult who wrote it in a will that
their life should be terminated on terminal illness/insanity
and a baby aborted is the same thing. A baby can’t make
decisions on their own. But the former case is one in
a million, and most with no will stating for it to take
place. Nevertheless, they being crazy and terminally
ill can’t make a conscious decision. What to do? End
life would be similar to abortion and if allowed, abortion
should be allowed with the non-bias argument earlier
used.
If they are allowed to live, who pays the medical bill? If the government
refuse to sustain life in deliberation of hope, and
pay my tax money to sustain a criminal, that is unbiased
and should spark outrage. If "push come to shove"
the prisoners should be terminated, living off the tax
dollars the now terminally ill paid all their life until
this condition. So back to it, on the protection of
life, such cases may be murder. It is life terminated,
and even if a will was left, that might be considered
a suicidal note; whereby a person can willfully get
sick and suffer the consequences of it knowing the will
and not having the heart for direct suicide.
One of the reasons for bringing this up is the prior argument, if
protection is given to humans who are out of the womb,
then it should be given to humans in the womb for justice,
equality and civil rights to hold up, and then abortion
was deemed and is murder. But the case of the terminally
ill patient to be put to death "threw a bone in
it." For if humans in the womb and out of the womb
are to be protected, then humans near out of the flesh
should be too, to make protection of all humans a viable
true statement of our nation. So is termination of life
of the terminally ill murder? Or is it free choice under
the current abortion trends and hence disqualifying
abortion as murder also?
Not trying to overtly defend pro-life, but simply speak the truth,
once there is life there is hope and hence willful pre-mature
death is murder. For instance, the bible records a man
name Job, he was near death with a life threatening
leprosy, but unlike the request of the evil one, he
sat until his change came. Job noted, "If a man
die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed
time will I wait, till my change come" (Job 14:14).
Miraculously, he recovered and was fully restored. If
that was the only example in the bible and history then
there would be a little doubt, but they are countless
such examples. The example given was a man who was sane,
but there is another example of a "mad man."
The bible noted of him, "always, night and day,
he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and
cutting himself with stones" (Mark 5:5). But despite
his condition, the Jews who were quick to stone a person
for adultery never thought to kill him or tried to,
though they reached out to him. Fortunately, Jesus healed
him and he was fully restored.
So terminal illness with insanity is not an excuse to murder someone.
If you can house and feed someone facing 5 life sentences
with hope of no parole, you can wait until the breathe
is gone out of man by providing. Most often, if they
remain alive that long means they are fighting to live,
whether sanely aware or not, for in just a few pains
it is easy to "give up the ghost." Therefore,
protection of life should encompass all humans at any
stage - 1) in the womb, 2) out of the womb 3) and near
out of the flesh. Allowing Pro-Choice to murder in any
of the three warrantee it in all and vice versa. We
can't have murder in number 2, so we shouldn't have
murder anywhere else. Pro-Choice to murder the unborn
and terminally ill is a violation of the said civil
liberties it hinges on.
Physical
and psychological complications for “abortee” and father
One
of the hallmark reasons for sanctioning abortion is
health, while I agree that certain health complications
may develop that abortion is the solution, it is very
rare. The only viable case may be a complication where
the doctors tell the couple they have to choose between
the baby and mother, as seen on T.V. All other complications
are futile and can be trumped up and even to a certain
degree with the right enough cash, the former complication
can be trumped up too.
What
also makes this health point weak is the fact that after
abortion, mothers and even the fathers develop physical
and psychological health complications. One source noted,
even “If what is growing within the mother is not human
life, if it is just a piece of tissue — a glob of protoplasm
— then it deserves little respect or consideration,
and the primary concern should be the mother’s physical
and mental health, her social well-being, and, at times,
even her convenience.” In other words, if all arguments
fail, the very one that helped legalize abortion can
be use to overturn it as well. Notice the following:
"Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful
life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent.
Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare.
There is also the distress for all concerned associated
with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of
bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically
or otherwise, to care for it. In other cases the additional
difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood
may be involved. All these are factors that the woman
and the responsible physician will consider in consultation."
Roe vs. Wade,
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-18, p. 38, Jan. 1973
The Court said that abortion could be performed: ". . . in the light of
all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial,
and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of
the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-40, IV, p. 11, Jan. 1973
Yet, notice
the following fact on abortion:
Types
Of Physical Complications:
The number and types of physical complications resulting from
abortion are as diverse as the various abortion methods.
Depending upon the type of abortion performed, physical
complications can be as follows:
·
Cervical
tearing and laceration from the instruments.
·
Perforation
of the uterus by instruments. This may require major
surgery, including hysterectomy.
·
Scarring
of the uterine lining by suction tubing, curettes, or
other instruments.
·
Infection,
local and systemic.
·
Hemorrhage
and shock, especially if the uterine artery is torn.
·
Anesthesia
toxicity from both general or local anesthesia, resulting
in possible convulsions, cardiorespiratory arrest, and
in extreme cases, death.
·
Retained
tissue, indicated by cramping, heavy bleeding, and infection.
·
Postabortal
syndrome, referring to an enlarged, tender and soft
uterus retaining blood clots.
·
Failure
to recognize an ectopic pregnancy. This could lead to
the rupture of a fallopian tube, hemorrhage and resulting
infertility or death, if treatment is not provided in
time.
Dr. Warren Hern, Abortion Practice, c. 1980 & Hern, W.
"Long Term Risks of Induced Abortion," Gynecology
and Obstetrics, 6:63 (1994)
Types
Of Psychological/Emotional Complications:
Some women experience immediate psychological problems from
abortion. Other women repress feelings of guilt, delaying
emotional reactions sometimes for several years and
oftentimes triggered by their first planned pregnancy.
These complications include:
·
Sad
mood.
·
Sudden
and uncontrollable crying episodes.
·
Deterioration
of self-concept.
·
Sleep,
appetite and sexual disturbances.
·
Reduced
motivation.
·
Disruption
in interpersonal relationships.
·
Extreme
guilt and anxiety.
·
Psychological
"numbing."
·
Depression
and thoughts of suicide.
Listing
provided by David Reardon, Ph.D., the Elliot Institute
and Paul C. Reisser, M.D. and Teri Reisser, M.S., "Identifying
and Overcoming Post-Abortion Syndrome," (Colorado
Springs: Focus on the Family, 1994), pg. 11 (teenbreaks.com).
Both physical
and psychological complications apply to the woman but
the man bears the psychological only. One might ask,
how would men feel if they were the ones pregnant, would
this argument come up? It would be the same indifferent
legislature proposed and ban on abortion if male pregnancy
was possible. Pre-abortion emotions count very little
in the strive to protect the unborn, for if it did,
the emotion of the dying baby in the womb would be the
priority; and once it is life, it has emotions. The
best substantiation of these complications comes from
an actual story of a girl who had an abortion. Sherry,
a would-be-mother, who not only confesses that what
she did is murder, but that she herself is dying inside
because of this act.
June 22 will forever stay in my mind and
in my heart. You see, that is the day I had my abortion.
At the time it didn't seem like it would be such a big
life-changing thing, but it was and it is. I was 19 and had been living with my fiancé for almost a year.
I had turned my back on my Christian beliefs, my family,
and my friends all in the name of "love."
His reaction to the possibility of my becoming pregnant
was, "If that's how you plan to get me to marry
you, then you're crazy!" Fortunately, I wasn't
pregnant; but a month later, I was.
This time he spoke of his undying love for me and how he wanted
us to have children but how unfair it would be to "all
of us" at this point. "Don't you want our
kids to have everything we can give them? All the things
we never had? Lots of toys? A big house?" And then
he mentioned an abortion. I was confused, afraid. I
couldn't stand the idea of disappointing my parents.
Moving in with him was one thing. A child born outside
of marriage would be quite something else.
I wanted to keep everyone as happy as I possibly could. According
to what I could find on the subject, it was really no
big deal. No real medical risk just a routine outpatient
operation. I'd be home by mid-afternoon. After all,
it wasn't even a baby yet. I was never told anything
about the risks, not about the pain, and certainly not
about the development of the tiny human inside me.
The day came. The people were very matter-of-fact as they showed
me the tube to be used in the suction procedure and
"counseled" me. They drew blood, prepped me,
and finally stood beside me as a strange, uncaring man
took away my child. However, they weren't there a year
later to take away the pain when I would hear a baby
cry and yet there was no baby. Mine was gone.
Since then I have denied it, accepted it, and hated it. I have
wanted to talk about it, yet refused to discuss it.
I hated myself for what I did and hated the "Right
to Life" people for making me aware of it. It is
shattering to find out after having an abortion that
the "blob of tissue" actually had fingers
and toes. I went up and down trying to deal with what
I had done. I couldn't tell anyone. Then I finally found
the answer for me.
I took it all to Jesus
and asked Him to forgive me and to heal me. He has brought
me to this point and made me able to face it in hopes
of helping someone who is where I once was (teenbreaks.com).
Sad to say, the same social argument we were sold on has the same turn
around and in most case mirror this saying, “we solve
one problem (or think we do) and create ten more.”
Rape
and Incest is not an excuse, adoption is a viable option
I didn’t
want to touch heavily on this section, so I’ll give
my two-cent and let Heritage House 76 (abortionfacts.com)
do the rest under this section. Everyone knows King
Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, he wasn’t the
direct product of rape but the relations from which
he came has a similar disdain to it. His mother (Bathsheba)
being forced into by David, while her husband was sent
to be killed by David. The child of that incident died,
but that same stigma could also be attached to Solomon,
the next child David and Bathsheba had. But regardless
of the negativity surrounding Solomon, God loved him
and he prospered as one of the wisest, richest and mightiest
kings ever. David could have terminated his relationship
with Bathsheba or Solomon’s life after all this and
we wouldn’t have what we have today from Solomon.
Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies?
We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has
been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love,
support and help. But she has been the victim of one
violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to
a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably,
many would return the violence of killing an innocent
baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this
decision, remember that most of the trauma has already
occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live
with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not
report for help, but kept this to herself. For several
weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now,
she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset,
and should be in a supportive situation.
The utilitarian question from the mother’s stand-point is whether
or not it would now be better to kill the developing
baby within her. But will abortion now be best for her,
or will it bring her more harm yet? What has happened
and its damage has already occurred.
She’s old enough to know and have an opinion as to whether
she carries a "baby" or a "blob of protoplasm."
Will she be able to live comfortably with the memory
that she "killed her developing baby"?
Or would she ultimately be more mature and more at peace
with herself if she could remember that, even though
she became pregnant unwillingly, she nevertheless solved
her problem by being unselfish, by giving of herself
and of her love to an innocent baby, who had not asked
to be created, to deliver, perhaps to place for adoption,
if she decides that is what is best for her baby. Compare
this memory with the woman who can only look back and
say, "I killed my baby."
But
carry the rapist’s child?
True, it is half his. But remember, half of the baby is also
hers, and there are other outstretched arms that will
adopt and love that baby.
I don’t
see how she could!
"Interestingly, the pregnant rape victim’s chief complaint
is not that she is unwillingly pregnant, as bad as the
experience is. The critical moment is fleeting in this
area. It frequently pulls families together like never
before. When women are impregnated through rape, their
condition is treated in accordance, as are their families.
"We found this experience is forgotten, replaced by remembering
the abortion, because it is what they did."
M. Uchtman, Director, Suiciders Anonymous,
Report to Cincinnati City Council, Sept. 1, 1981
"In the majority of these cases, the pregnant victim’s
problems stem more from the trauma of rape than from
the pregnancy itself." Mahkorn & Dolan, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy."
In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University
Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 239
As to what factors make it most difficult to continue her pregnancy,
the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of others were
most frequently cited; in other words, how her loved
ones treated her. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy & Sexual Assault."
In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University
Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72
But many laws would allow for this exception.
That is because many only think of the mother. But we should
also think of the baby. Should we kill an innocent unborn
baby for the crime of his father? Or let’s look at it
this way. Do we punish other criminals by killing their
children? Besides, such laws pose major problems in
reporting, and also women have been known to report
falsely.
You
accuse women of lying?
We don’t have to. Radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in
a 1985 interview with USA Today said that "to
make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest
would force women to lie."
The story of Jane Roe, of the Roe v. Wade Decision,
is well known. Norma McCorvey (her real name) fabricated
a story, that she had been gang raped at a circus, in
the mistaken impression that this would permit her to
obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Not until 1987 did
she reveal that the baby was actually conceived "through
what I thought was love." (Post, Sept. 9,
1987.) And:
Up until 1988, Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program funded abortions,
for women who claimed they had been raped, without any
requirement for reporting of the purported assault to
a law enforcement agency. Under this law, abortion clinic
personnel issued thinly veiled public invitations for
women to simply state that they’d been raped, and the
state ended up funding an average of 36 abortions a
month based on such unsubstantiated claims. In 1988
the legislature added a requirement for reporting the
rape to a law enforcement agency, and the average dropped
to less than three abortions per month.
You
said reporting was a problem?
The problem is requiring proof. If the woman goes directly
to the hospital, her word is accepted. But, sadly, through
fright or ignorance, she may not report it and quietly
nurse her fears. She misses her period and hopes against
hope that it isn’t what she thinks it is. Sometimes
months go by before finally, in tears, she reports to
her mother, her physician, or some other counselor or
confidante. To prove rape then is impossible. The only
proof of rape then is to have a reliable witness corroborate
the story, and such a witness almost never exists.
What
proof would be needed early on?
Reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency is needed. Any
hospital emergency room will handle this.
If done within a day or two, she can be examined, given medicine
for sexually transmitted diseases and counseled. Her
word will rarely be questioned. But if it is many days
later, especially after a missed period, her word may
not be enough (see above).
What percentage of rape pregnancies are
aborted?
Less than half. The balance carry the baby to term. In one
study of 37 rape pregnancies, 28 carried to term. S. Makhorn, in Psychological Aspects
of Abortion, Mall & Watts, Univ. Pub. 1979,
Pg. 58
What
is her chief complaint?
Perhaps, surprisingly, it is not the fact that she is pregnant.
Her chief complaint is "how other people treat
her." This should be very sobering to everyone.
How is she treated? Do others understand the trauma
she has experienced, and love and support her? Or, do
they avoid her and act as if it was partly her fault,
or worse? Just think, if all such victims were given
generous love and support, many more than at present
would carry their babies to term. Mahkorn
& Dona, "Sexual Assault & Pregnancy."
In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University
Publishers of Amer., 1981, pp. 182-199 Mahkorn, "Pregnancy
& Sexual Assault." In Psychological Aspects
of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979,
pp. 53-72
What if she could not cope with raising
the child?
We must let these women know that it is all right to feel that
way. We fully understand. That does not mean, however,
that the baby is unwanted. There are innumerable arms
outstretched, aching for a child to love. Any number
of couples will want the child. She should be supported
and encouraged if she chooses to place the child in
a loving adoptive home.
She
had a problem. Abortion permanently removes the problem.
Or is there emotional aftermath?
In recent years it has become clear that these women can and
do suffer from Post-Abortion Syndrome. When PAS does
develop, a woman, so affected, can carry the same burdens
of guilt, denial and depression that a woman who aborted
a "love" baby often does. Why is this? At
least two dynamics seem obvious. Remember that the rape
was done to her. She was not responsible. She was the
innocent victim and should bear no guilt. But, by contrast,
the abortion will be done by her. She agreed to it.
She was a volitional participant in a second act of
violence: the killing of her own unborn child. And it
is her own unborn child. This is the other inescapable
fact of biology that probably is a factor in the development
of PAS. The newly-conceived baby is certainly the "rapist’s
child," but he or she is also her child, for half
of the new baby’s genetic material came from her. She
may try, but, inside of her, she cannot deny this biologic
reality, however unwillingly it happened and however
upsetting it may be. And so, to kill this little one
by abortion is to participate in a violent, lethal act
that destroys a baby who is partly her own flesh and
blood. In loving charity, we should never remind her
of this.
But we don’t have to, for she knows it instinctively and all
of her maternal feelings may well rebel when faced with
being a part of this killing.
The "treatment" for rape, isn’t
it abortive?
This is best illustrated by giving two theoretical case histories.
Woman "A" is raped at midnight on Saturday
and is treated in a hospital emergency room with a female
hormone medication beginning at 3:00 a.m. Sunday morning.
In this case, the woman’s body was scheduled to ovulate
two days later, on Monday. If that were to have occurred,
and if the assailant’s sperm were still alive in her
body, she might have been fertilized two days after
the assault and become pregnant at that time. A very
small body of medical opinion believes that the dose
of medication given might prevent that ovulation, and
she would therefore not get pregnant. This mechanism
of action would be one of temporary sterilization, or,
in more commonly used (however technically inaccurate)
terms, the action would be contraceptive. Woman "B"
presents a different case. She had ovulated at 9:00
p.m. on Saturday, was raped at midnight, and also received
treatment at 3:00 a.m. To her own observation, this
lady also does not "get pregnant." In fact,
something entirely different happened inside her body.
Let us assume that she was one of those very rare cases
where fertilization did occur, and had, in fact, occurred
prior to the giving of the medication. The life of a
tiny new little boy or girl had begun. The cells of
this tiny body begin to divide and divide again, but
at one week of life, when implantation within the nutrient
lining of the mother’s womb should occur, this tiny
new human being could not implant and died. The mechanism
of action of the drug, in this case, had been to harden
the lining of the womb in order to prevent implantation.
This effect was one of a micro-abortion, at one week
of life and represents the large majority of medical
opinion.
Would
a law forbidding abortion, prevent such treatment?
Most legal opinion agrees that since these drugs have a multiplicity
of other beneficial and therapeutic effects, they would
never be removed from the market. Since they would in
some cases have a legally permissible effect (temporary
sterilization or/and contraception), even with a strong
Human Life Amendment in place, the use of such drugs
after rape could not be forbidden. Therefore, the choice
now available to a woman after an assault rape, to use
or not use such treatment, would still be available
after such a law. [Hence, like how some drugs
cannot be had without prescription, drugs of this nature
shouldn’t be obtainable without prescription and pregnancy
tests or other tests by a certified doctor – a sort
of ban on the drugs as well. With rape victims, seeing
that the drug is banned or sensitive to that nature,
an alternative drug should be given to such a person
and others in a similar situation.]
Does anyone win after a rape?
Once, after answering questions on rape on a radio show, one
of your authors was called to the phone after the program.
A woman’s voice said,
"You were talking about me. You see, I am the product
of rape. An intruder forced his way into my parents’
house, tied up my father and, with him watching, raped
my mother. I was conceived that night. Everyone advised
an abortion. The local doctors and hospital were willing.
My father, however, said, ‘Even though not mine, that
is a child and I will not allow it to be killed!’ I
don’t know how many times that, as I lay secure in the
loving arms of my husband, I have thanked God for my
wonderful Christian father." And so, does anyone
win? Yes, the baby does.
What of incest?
Incest is intercourse by a father with his daughter, uncle
with niece, etc. It usually involves a sick man, often
a sick mother who frequently knows it’s happening (even
if not consciously admitting it), and an exploited child.
Fortunately, pregnancy is not very common. When incest
does occur, however, it is seldom reported and, when
reported, is hard to prove.
Most pregnancies from incest have a very different dynamic
than from rape and must be counseled in a very different
manner.
Even strongly pro-abortion people, if they approach an incest
case professionally, must be absolutely convinced before
advising abortion, for abortion is not only is an assault
on the young mother, who may well be pregnant with a
"love object," but it may completely fail
to solve the original problem. It is also unusual for
wisdom to dictate anything but adoptive placement of
the baby.
Love
object?
When pregnancy does occur, it is often an attempt to end the
relationship. In a twisted sort of way, however, the
father is a love object. In one study, only 3 of 13
child-mothers had any negative feelings toward him.
H. Maisch, Incest, New York: Stein
& Day Publishers, 1972
In incest, is pregnancy common?
No. "Considering the prevalence of teenage pregnancies
in general, incest treatment programs marvel at the
low incidence of pregnancy from incest." Several
reports agree at 1% or less. G. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest,"
The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University
Publications of Amer., 1979, p. 74 245
How
does the incest victim feel about being pregnant?
For her,
it is a way to stop the incest; a way to unite mother
and daughter, a way to get out of the house. Most incestuous
pregnancies, if not pressured, will not get abortions.
"As socially inappropriate as incest and incestuous
pregnancies are, their harmful effects depend largely
upon reaction of others." G. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest,"
The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University
Publications of Amer., 1979, p. 100
“Pregnancy
from rape is extremely rare. A study of one thousand
rape victims who were treated after the rape reported
no pregnancies. There are no known studies of incest
cases. Medically, we know pregnancy in these cases would
be rare.”
Suggestions
to stop the murder of babies
The following
are some suggestions to help stop the murder of babies,
from heritage house:
Educate
- First yourself, then others.
Volunteer
- To help in your local pro-life group or pregnancy help center.
Lobby
- Your elected officials.
Write
- Those who support Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion and anti-family
groups. Write your newspapers, your radio and TV stations.
Vote
- Nothing will change unless you do. Remember that any candidate for
public office who permits, supports or wants you to
pay for the direct killing of almost every third baby
conceived in America — that candidate is simply disqualified
from holding public office.
Support
- Pro-Life groups, like Heritage House 76, ACLJ, Center For Moral
Clarity, Reclaiming America and many more.
Pray
- Pray as if everything depends upon your prayers, for it just might
be so. Seeing that we are wrestling a battle that is
bigger than us, as explained in the preamble to the
Student Manifesto, our best weapon is prayer with faith;
that is, pray believing that what you just prayed for
is gained instantaneously even though you might not
realize it yet.
My
opinion from a Godly perspective
The bible
gave the remedy, Abstinence! Don’t have unplanned sex,
don’t have unplanned pregnancies. And the only planned
sex you can have is between two consenting adults of
the opposite sex who are married; the rarity and exception
is rape. Even with the latter case, no funding should
be provided by the government for murder. Adoption is
a viable option and made extra-ordinarily easy by the
local agencies and also by the vast number of stable
traditional couples, who can’t have children, that wants
a new born to adopt. You might ask, “How can a girl give up her own baby for adoption and
go through life never knowing what is happening to her
child?” Which is better to remember,
"I gave my baby life. And because I loved him,
I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" -
or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?"
I
had thought to suggest 3 constitutional amendments/article
that are vital to the survival of the republic, the
one I will mention now because I now later withdraw
such ideas of suggesting it for constitutional amendment,
because it might already be in it. That is, within the
constitution, a clear written legislature-outlawing
abortion; giving attention to the history of it and
detrimental implication it has had on the country, from
below and especially from above (Prov 14:34). Citing
historic cases as Roe vs. Wade as well. But now doing
this essay for a public speaking class, I come to realize
that abortion is already unconstitutional, federally
and even in the state laws, whether stated or inherent.
Because, if it is really analyzed it will be clearly
seen that abortion is murder, which I have done, and
if so, an unlawful act in America and the world. If
the notion, erroneously, is used of Pro-Choice, then
I should also have the Pro-Choice to kill my relatives
when they annoy me; after all, they are flesh and blood
and it’s a choice to do so. Of course, that sounds bizarre
and unscholarly to convince you of this fact, so I cordially
ask that you re-read the section from my essay on why
abortion is already outlawed and should be enforced:
Because life begun and hence murder is palpable,
for you can only really kill something that is ALIVE.
If after such plain rhetoric it can’t be seen by the
adamantly evil Pro-choicers, then I guess the inevitable
must occur of making the amendment/article itself (e.g. NRLC proposal).
"The
care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction,
is the first and only legitimate object of good government" (Thomas Jefferson "To Republican Citizens of Wash.
County Maryland." March 31, 1809). Hence, if this
and any government is said to be good, they must protect
the human life of the unborn from being terminated.
To
further be convinced go to:
http://www.armyofgod.com/BabySelect.html
or http://www.threeq.com/pages/abortion.html
or look below: -
About
Us |
Help
Us | Tell
it |
Free
ThreeQ Email | Free
Webpage | News |
Tracts |
Web-Evangelism |
Bible FAQ |
Online
Counseling 
