Pro-Life "except in cases of . . . "


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hmm, interesting thread. I never really looked at the Church's position on abortion and always thought the church was in line with other Protestant churches that life begins at conception, it certainly appears so if you read all of the church literature without really mincing what leaders are actual saying.

I saw an earlier post that the church really doesn't have a concrete position on when life begins and that's true, to a point. With more research it appears as though Brigham Young stated that life begins when the baby first moves. With our modern equipment, we know that the baby's heart begin moving/beating at about 5 weeks after conception. My research also showed that many early church leaders were very strongly opposed to abortion and offered no exceptions.

I am confused by all of this. Why are there exceptions now but there weren't before? Why was abortion considered murder before but now it is not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a word, yes. If you now understand the suffering a woman goes through when she finds herself in a situation where she wants an abortion, especially if she is a caretaker, isn't her well-being as important as her unwanted child's?

And this is where the typical pro-lifer sounds heartless. Everyone's emotions are important. Most especially, a mother's. Her wellbeing is indeed as important as her child's. BUT...is her wellbeing as important as a child's life?

What if having an additional child really would make it impossible for her to care for those she already has?

And no, adoption is not always the easy way out, as many women find, after nine months of carrying a child, that she cannot give it up for adoption.

We're back to admittedly heart-wrenching circumstances. Very few women would easily give up a child, once they've given birth. If circumstances demand such (she really just cannot possibly care for one more--or even the one), then give up she must. Do we really want to condone letting her have the child killed so she can avoid the very real emotional pain of having to give the child up? How can we as a society even put mothers in the position of having to consider such a choice?

I don't expect this to persuade you. I offer it as perspective only, because this really is far more complicated than I've seen any anti-abortion group acknowledge. I admit, however, that I may not have seen it because I have not looked.

Elphaba

I really try to look outside of my own simplicity. If I were not convinced of the simple truth that human life begins, both spiritually and physically, at conception, then much of what you say would at least persuade me that pro-choice position is grounded in compassion for the mothers. And indeed, for most, it is.

But, if I am right--and the cautious position is that I am--that human life begins at conception, then none of the pro-choice arguments hold. You simply would not kill a child because of the sins of her father. Nor would you do so for the psychological wellbeing of his mother. We know that with conception there is growth. We know what will come of this life. It will be a human baby. How can we ever be certain that at any time after conception that life is not human?

Having said all that, the mothers are usually the least to blame. Society permits abortion, often encouraging it. In many of these situations, it's the boyfriend, his parents, and sometimes the mother's parents, who are pushing for the abortion. And, often, the encounter for young teens was semi-consensual at best. IMHO, neither the mothers, nor any of us should be put in the position of being allowed to make such a horrific decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, welcome to my side of things.

I've discussed abortion issues with so many different "sides" and like Elphaba it irritates me that a lot of people don't really think beyond the "it's murder" comment even if I am in the "life begins at conception" camp. It muddies the discussion and puts everybody on their own corners fighting. If pro-lifers can just be consistent about the why's and wherefore's then the pro-choicers can understand that, file it, and move on to the "real" discussion - the heart-wrenching stuff.

Life is hard - it is full of challenges. It is how we handle these challenges that should be the discussion point - not the "you're a murderer" bit. Because, if you really think about it - nobody wants to kill anybody - born or unborn - without a really good reason for it. Pro-choicers included. What we can do as Pro-Lifers is sift through the reasons and provide what we deem as the better alternative that addresses the issues. We can't just push for legislation that says - No Abortions - under the Right to Life clause without cementing the alternative route for those 11-year-old rape victims and the like.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mirancs8

One would need to be required to produce medical evidence of rape. Or in other words, one would have had to go to the hospital shortly after the incident happened, receive an exam and have a rape kit done (which is common sense after a rape anyway). Later, should a pregnancy result from the rape, one would have documented proof that it had been address 6-8 weeks earlier, not just when it became convenient to "cry rape."

I can tell you that many times a rape victim will not immediately go to the hospital after being raped. Not even telling anyone because they might feel a sense of shame and fault as to why they do not immediate act on the issue.

This might cause an issue as to proving it ever happened thus her not being able to "qualify" to get an abortion. Rape is very complex in the mind of that person who has been raped. It's not like when it happens they immediately stand up and say, "OK let me get myself to the hospital." No it's most likely the complete opposite unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I have a difficult time pushing for the criminalization of abortion. Because I feel that in the case of rape/possible death of the mother a woman SHOULD be allowed to have an abortion if she sees fit to do so.

But here's where the problems are, how on earth would you regulate such a thing? Some doctors (particularly ones with a political agenda leaning either direction) could advise that a woman either is or isn't in harm's way just because they want an outcome for the child that supports their ideology. This is scary to me, but doesn't seem totally farfetched. Doctor's frequently have differing opinions on a person's condition or treatment.

The same is for the rape victims. Regulating this would basically force rape victims to file charges. Not all rape victims are in a position to go to a hospital for a rape kit (especially if the attacker is a family member). How do you prove rape then? What if the woman does file charges, but the rapist is found innocent for whatever reason (happens all the time) does she not get permission to have an abortion then? What's more, look how long it takes for our legal system to move. Rape cases can takes months, sometimes even years to come to a resolution. A woman who is pregnant doesn't have that long to wait.

I know from the perspective of someone who has been sexually assaulted....had I become pregnant from my attack i'm certain I would have killed myself rather than carry the child to term. I lived in a state at the time where abortions were not legal, and I had no way of going to a different state to attain one. I was so emotionally fragile at the time that I attempted suicide anyway, if I had to carry that vile human's child.....I certainly would have made sure that I succeeded.

I get kind of upset when people use the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument when referring to rape victims getting access to abortions....those are people who obviously have never experienced trauma of that sort. It's not about righting a wrong...it's about saving an already damaged human being from further turmoil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mirancs8

The same is for the rape victims. Regulating this would basically force rape victims to file charges. Not all rape victims are in a position to go to a hospital for a rape kit (especially if the attacker is a family member). How do you prove rape then? What if the woman does file charges, but the rapist is found innocent for whatever reason (happens all the time) does she not get permission to have an abortion then? What's more, look how long it takes for our legal system to move. Rape cases can takes months, sometimes even years to come to a resolution. A woman who is pregnant doesn't have that long to wait.

I know from the perspective of someone who has been sexually assaulted....had I become pregnant from my attack i'm certain I would have killed myself rather than carry the child to term. I lived in a state at the time where abortions were not legal, and I had no way of going to a different state to attain one. I was so emotionally fragile at the time that I attempted suicide anyway, if I had to carry that vile human's child.....I certainly would have made sure that I succeeded.

In my early 20s I sat through a rape trial of a young girl she was about 13 I think, and it was HORRIFYING to watch and listen to. She sat only steps away from the man who as she walked to school pulled her into an abandoned building. Every detail of the rape and every article of clothing was displayed for the court. That experience made me understand exactly why a women would not run immediately to the authorities. To even have to go through that is enough to make me physically ill. That poor child I couldn't even imagine being that young age and being put through that.

The thought of becoming pregnant because of a rape would be traumatizing for me. This is the reason I can't come to a complete one sided view on this issue. I do think there are times that it should be allowed. Though again, how do we determine it? What if there is no proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elphaba, when I heard that professor's argument, I did not like it. At the time, I could only see the exception of the mother's life being physically endangered. Perhaps I'm coming full circle. What I see now is this:

1. The rape/incest was unfair.

2. The pain, discomfort, and health risks attached with the pregnancy (especially if the victim is young) is unfair.

3. The exposure to STDs is unfair.

BUT, none of that makes it right to kill the baby. Will adding yet another wrong make all the others right?

And this is why abortion, even in these instances, should not be automatic. LDS view is that it should be carefully and prayerfully made with guidance by one's bishop.

Yes, taking a life is a harsh and severe thing to do. But those on the absolutely no abortion side, seem to think only of the unborn. We are talking about two children of God, not just one. You may save the unborn, but destroy the person. Say a woman with 5 children is brutally kidnapped and raped over a long period of time. She is impregnated along the way. Should she be forced to carry the child? It depends upon many things, not just the life of the unborn - which is one factor to consider. What if carrying the child drives her completely insane, and now she not only cannot care for the newborn, but also cannot care for her other children? Each of these lives is precious, and ALL must be considered in such an event.

I do agree that abortion should be extremely rare, and avoided if at all possible. But I think we forget that often there are more than just one innocent involved.

As for those who would pretend to have been raped, so they could get an abortion of convenience, I would say they will someday have to deal with a Just God for their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should stop telling rape victims what is right or wrong in their situation - it is entirely their own decision and has nothing to do with anyone else.

We talk about the sanctity of life - what about the life of a suicidal woman/girl who has been raped? Do we take an already violated human being and heap additional trauma on her?

If you are not the rape victim, then stay away unless you can offer support for whatever SHE chooses for her situation.

I cannot believe how judgemental people can be. It's truly sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would need to be required to produce medical evidence of rape. Or in other words, one would have had to go to the hospital shortly after the incident happened, receive an exam and have a rape kit done (which is common sense after a rape anyway). Later, should a pregnancy result from the rape, one would have documented proof that it had been address 6-8 weeks earlier, not just when it became convenient to "cry rape."

You know i read somewhere that many rapes go un prosecuted due to the lack of evidence. After going through such a traumatic and defiling experience many women go straight to the shower washing away evidence. Make the law too stringent and you would defeat the purpose by making rape victims carry the babies to term. Catch 22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know i read somewhere that many rapes go un prosecuted due to the lack of evidence. After going through such a traumatic and defiling experience many women go straight to the shower washing away evidence. Make the law too stringent and you would defeat the purpose by making rape victims carry the babies to term. Catch 22

Even with a shower, bruising and physical trauma would still show up, which would lean toward rape (unless the woman regularly participated in rough sex). The problem is that by the time a woman learns she is pregnant, 6 weeks have passed and there's no way to prove anything by then. A rape kit should typically be done (I think) within 72 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe how judgemental people can be. It's truly sickening.

And yet, is this not equally so. You say that we must allow for an exception, in cases of rape, because do not do so is heartless and judgmental. You say pro-lifer people only consider the unborn, and give no regard to the victim who is born. Is such a conclusion also not judgmental? Is it not also sickening to broadbrush people so?

With this string I've suggested a hardline pro-life stance. And yet, have you not read through and seen me repeatedly use the word "heart-wrenching?" But where in the tremendous sympathy we must show the victim did this notion arise, "We feel bad for her, so lets offer her the option of killing the child?" Obviously, that came centuries ago, but why? Shelter, counseling, loving support, prayers, day-to-day assistance with grappling with life while struggling with memory-demons--these are compassionate, heart-full responses. Suggesting that the pain be alleviated by killing the child? I'm not sure how that became so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with a shower, bruising and physical trauma would still show up, which would lean toward rape (unless the woman regularly participated in rough sex). The problem is that by the time a woman learns she is pregnant, 6 weeks have passed and there's no way to prove anything by then. A rape kit should typically be done (I think) within 72 hours.

I just realized mirancs8 and RachelleDrew touched upon the problem. I don't know the science that goes into catching a rapist (aside from what i learned watching CSI ;)) but in either event i think if the law requires rape, then some women will "give them rape", if the law require proof of rape you risk forcing the women who are too scared to come forward , to carry the babies to term.

If the rape kit is done within 72 hours there would be a need for an abortion and they could just take Plan B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is to determine the emotional impact having an unwanted child will have on a woman? It seems obvious to me that it should be the woman, as she knows her situation, and herself, better than any other person. Yet, it is my impression that those adamantly against abortions give absolutely no merit to a woman's explanation that having an unwanted child will severely, and negatively, impact her emotionally. Yet who, other than she, is best able to make that determination? No one.

Well, it isn't just the effect on the woman per se; there's the question of the degree to which she got herself into that situation through her own consensual conduct.

Example: in Utah, if a man has intercourse in the state, he is deemed to be legally "on notice" that a pregnancy may result. We don't care about how that pregnancy may affect him--in fact, we pretty much waive the 13th amendment in his case if in fact a child is born. We tell the man: if you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't have sex. And if you did voluntarily have sex, and pregnancy results and the child is born, you will pay a substantial portion of your income towards that child's support. Whether you want to or not. And if that drain on your resources means you have to work 80-hour weeks for the next eighteen years, or you can't afford to marry, or any future children of yours will have to subsist on a fraction of the standard of living enjoyed by that first child--too freakin' bad.

I think this is where anti-abortion groups have it completely wrong. They do not acknowledge the severe emotional impact having an unwanted child can have on a woman, and therefore, on the child.

Frankly, until men get the same consideration that women do with regard to the consequences of an unintended pregnancy initiated through consensual intercourse, I'm not inclined to give this argument a lot of mileage.

And, again, many of these children are traumatized because their mother did not, and does not, want them.

A lot of this could be dealt with by reform of adoption legislation. Too many people think giving birth and keeping the baby are synonymous.

Additionally, who is, ultimatley, to determine whether she was really raped or not? If the woman truly believes she was raped, was she really raped if there was no "force" involved? How do you define "force"? (I use "you" in the collective sense.)

My pet idea--and I think it's been mentioned here already--is to simply require that the victim file a report. To the extent that we hear horror stories about insensitive police officials, we need to reform that aspect of the system.

But ultimately (and I suspect you'll virulently disagree, which is fine), I'd go back to a utilitarian argument. If the system isn't perfect--if a few dozen bona fide rape victims wind up giving birth each year because they can't bring themselves to report a crime--I think it's a worthwhile price if the end result is to shave several hundred thousand off the number of elective abortions performed annually.

What if her husband was her rapist? Would you then apply the "exceptions" when judging whether or not she is guilty of killing her unborn baby? Many people would not, as they do not believe a husband can rape his wife.

I haven't done a 50-state survey, but this article suggests that all 50 states have abolished the ancient marital rape exception laws.

I think your self-defense explanation is interesting, but if it isn't already, I think it should be expanded to allow the woman to decide whether she was unable to defend herself, or not. She should not have to prove "force," because it is, ironically, hardest to prove in some of the cases where it is most true. An emotionally battered woman is often raped by her husband on a regular basis. She doesn't fight it because she has learned it not only does no good, but makes things worse. Yet it is a rape nonetheless.

Well, practically speaking, if we waited for a rape conviction before authorizing an abortion the whole issue would become moot--the justice system just doesn't work that fast. That's why, when I'm king of the world, I'll only be requiring an allegation of rape, duly reported to the proper authorities. Heck, I'd even support an alternative whereby instead of going down to the police station, we started authorizing women's shelters to take rape reports--there just needs to be a record filed somewhere, so that a) we know the woman's serious, and b) she's taking affirmative steps to make sure that the situation doesn't happen again.

I've thought about this quite a bit since you posted it in the previous thread. It helped me articulate some things I'd previously struggled with trying to explain, and I'm usually very good at explaining myself. So, thanks for that.

I aim to please. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it isn't just the effect on the woman per se; there's the question of the degree to which she got herself into that situation through her own consensual conduct.

Example: in Utah, if a man has intercourse in the state, he is deemed to be legally "on notice" that a pregnancy may result. We don't care about how that pregnancy may affect him--in fact, we pretty much waive the 13th amendment in his case if in fact a child is born. We tell the man: if you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't have sex. And if you did voluntarily have sex, and pregnancy results and the child is born, you will pay a substantial portion of your income towards that child's support. Whether you want to or not. And if that drain on your resources means you have to work 80-hour weeks for the next eighteen years, or you can't afford to marry, or any future children of yours will have to subsist on a fraction of the standard of living enjoyed by that first child--too freakin' bad.

Frankly, until men get the same consideration that women do with regard to the consequences of an unintended pregnancy initiated through consensual intercourse, I'm not inclined to give this argument a lot of mileage.

I'm pretty sure men and women do get nearly identical considerations. If a child is born out of consensual intercourse, then the father is required to pay a part of his income to support the child...but so is the mother. Your argument makes it seem like the mother gets a free ride out of keeping the child, which is false. You could argue, in fact, that the mother gets the raw end of the deal because she has to care for the child while the father just has to write a check.

What's more, the father is well within his rights to apply for custody of the child, in which case the mother would have to send her financial support.

So the only difference I see in how the mother and the father are treated is that the father doesn't have any say in whether or not the child is aborted. Are you saying that the father should have any say in this decision? Specifically, should the father have a process available to him by which he can require the mother to abort the child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I have a difficult time pushing for the criminalization of abortion. Because I feel that in the case of rape/possible death of the mother a woman SHOULD be allowed to have an abortion if she sees fit to do so.

I know from the perspective of someone who has been sexually assaulted....had I become pregnant from my attack i'm certain I would have killed myself rather than carry the child to term. I lived in a state at the time where abortions were not legal, and I had no way of going to a different state to attain one. I was so emotionally fragile at the time that I attempted suicide anyway, if I had to carry that vile human's child.....I certainly would have made sure that I succeeded.

I get kind of upset when people use the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument when referring to rape victims getting access to abortions....those are people who obviously have never experienced trauma of that sort. It's not about righting a wrong...it's about saving an already damaged human being from further turmoil.

Okay, here I go... I have a rule never to divulge sensitive personal information on an anonymous forum. I'll make an exception in this case.

I too am a victim yet I too believe "two wrongs don't make a right". So, it is not correct to say that those who believe that, have not experienced extreme trauma.

But, I am from a different philosophy as you.

Listen - it is something so abominally profound to have experienced something like that. It breaks you or makes you. A lot of times, it breaks you. And that's without the unintended consequence of pregnancy.

But, I truly believe with my whole heart, mind, and soul that a rape victim can rise above it when he/she has the support group to get him/her through. This is not just a woman issue. This is a criminal ill impacting men, women, and more importantly, children. The consequence of pregnancy is just but part and parcel of the whole sexual assault event.

I mentioned this before that I'm from the ultra-pro-life perspective where only the choice of life versus life is a consideration - not mental state (rape victim's mental condition, etc.), not fortune (what kind of challenges the birth brings to the newborn and everybody else), not birth defects (genetic, etc.) or any other where the life of the mother is not on the balance.

So, usually, when I say this, I get that "you heartless witch" comment, which is the pro-choice equivalent of the "you murderer" pro-life comment and they stop to listen to why I believe this.

Forget abortion legislation for one moment. If we concentrate all our efforts on education, support groups both physical and psychological, and a change in culture that invites men and women to find that safe haven, we will be much better off as a society - pregnancy or otherwise.

When I went through trauma, I had nobody - NOBODY - to turn to. Not family, not friends, not church, NOBODY. First of all - I didn't understand what just happened. I felt it was my fault - common reaction - and I felt ashamed - another common reaction - and being a devout Catholic, I knew I was going to hell - hence, suicidal - and this was even YEARS later.

I have gone through daydreams where I had Superman (literally) that would take me away and make everything better then crash when reality strikes and Superman is not there. As I matured, I realized that IF there was TRULY a Superman, things would have been much different!

And that's what I'm advocating - I dream of a time when a woman who gets sexually assaulted will already know that this is a bad thing and she needs to do a.), b.), and c.)... When your house burns down, you know what to do and you know who to call. It is tragic, but there's a lesser chance of people committing suicide after their house burns down than people committing suicide after a sexual assault. It should be like that for victims of sexual assault. You know you're not alone and somebody will hold your hand and see you through. Whatever challenges that come up can be handled by people who know what they are doing and who has the victim's best interests with love and compassion. "Sexual assault hot-line, call 8-1-1" or something.

When that system is in place - then pregnancy is nothing but part of the million-and-one challenges for an assault victim to see through. The extremely difficult selfless act of a traumatized victim to see to the birth of a child has the possibility of being bearable when borne by an entire society and not just one person.

It is very difficult for me to explain it. Truly, I can't. I've been passionate about this since I was... gosh, 14? Yet until today, I still can't quite express it properly without people pointing to me like I'm loco. I just know that life is possible - for both mother and child - 11-year-old or otherwise. Let the legislation stay, it doesn't matter - what matters is the informed choices each and every one of us make. Education. It's always the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure men and women do get nearly identical considerations. If a child is born out of consensual intercourse, then the father is required to pay a part of his income to support the child...but so is the mother. Your argument makes it seem like the mother gets a free ride out of keeping the child, which is false. You could argue, in fact, that the mother gets the raw end of the deal because she has to care for the child while the father just has to write a check.

Except that Mom can call the whole thing off, twice. First, she can get an abortion and Dad can't intervene at all. Second, she can give the child up for adoption and Dad can't intervene unless he's jumped through some very specific hoops in Utah law.

What's more, the father is well within his rights to apply for custody of the child, in which case the mother would have to send her financial support.

He can apply, but he won't get it. Not unless Mom did crack during the pregnancy, or something like that.

Legally, yes, there's not supposed to be a preference on the basis of gender per se, but judges still don't like separating newborns from their mommies. Barring very egregious conduct, the judge will generally find that for purposes of nursing or whatever, it's in the best interest of the child to stay with Mom. Until the child is about six months old, Dad's parent time (at least in Utah) is token at best.

So the only difference I see in how the mother and the father are treated is that the father doesn't have any say in whether or not the child is aborted. Are you saying that the father should have any say in this decision? Specifically, should the father have a process available to him by which he can require the mother to abort the child?

I wouldn't allow Dad to force Mom to abort; but if Mom has a way to dodge the financial responsibilities appurtenant to parenthood--so should Dad. By contrast, if we're going to keep allowing Mom to unilaterally bind Dad for eighteen years, then I don't see why we shouldn't allow Dad to unilaterally bind Mom for nine months by letting him get a court order forbidding her to abort.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And yet, your post shows the extreme differences in how people react to their abuse/attack.

You cannot possibly expect someone to react to their situation in the same way you did. Just as there are other women who didn't deal with their situation the same way I did.

Some women can "rise above" their attack, but as you mentioned as of right now there isn't a lot of support or help for women (or men) who have been sexually manipulated in whatever way. To expect someone to rise above their terrifying situation is unfair and cruel. Because not everyone is capable of that. As you know, recovery from rape or sexual abuse takes time, and in my experience it takes a hell of a lot longer than nine months.

I don't quite understand how someone could force another woman to:

- Carry a child that she never wanted in the first place

-That she never did anything to deserve

-To make her face scrutiny for being pregnant out of wedlock (surely many people won't know that she was raped)

- To make her pay for the medical expenses associated with pregnancy (this may or may not be the case depending on the adoption agreement)

-To make her go through the excruciating pain of childbirth, and sometimes just general pregnancy issues

-Her having to go through the pain of the adoption process (regardless of how you feel about your attacker, there has to be some loss associated for some women)

What if she has other kids? How is she supposed to deal with their questions and concerns?

Assuming she is in a relationship, will that end because they can't deal with her being pregnant with another man's child? What about work and school? If the pregnancy is difficult or medically challenging her having to leave work or school for more than just the six weeks postnatal is likely.

Then what if that kid comes looking for her demanding answers as to why she gave them up?

The problem that the child's existence creates extends long past the nine months of gestation. I don't see how it's fair or right to force a woman to basically be an incubator for someone else simply because she was a victim of chance.

For the record, psh. Loco? You are very smart. I don't think you are crazy at all. You are certainly the first victim i've encountered with your views so you are interesting to me. But not crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that Mom can call the whole thing off, twice. First, she can get an abortion and Dad can't intervene at all. Second, she can give the child up for adoption and Dad can't intervene unless he's jumped through some very specific hoops in Utah law.

He can apply, but he won't get it. Not unless Mom did crack during the pregnancy, or something like that.

Legally, yes, there's not supposed to be a preference on the basis of gender per se, but judges still don't like separating newborns from their mommies. Barring very egregious conduct, the judge will generally find that for purposes of nursing or whatever, it's in the best interest of the child to stay with Mom. Until the child is about six months old, Dad's parent time (at least in Utah) is token at best.

I wouldn't allow Dad to force Mom to abort; but if Mom has a way to dodge the financial responsibilities appurtenant to parenthood--so should Dad. By contrast, if we're going to keep allowing Mom to unilaterally bind Dad for eighteen years, then I don't see why we shouldn't allow Dad to unilaterally bind Mom for nine months by letting him get a court order forbidding her to abort.

^Sheesh. The laws in Utah suck. Ours are similar, but it doesn't seem as extreme.

There are lots of men here who are the sole custody parents, even without their baby mamas being on crack.

But I get what you are saying. It's tough, and the laws don't favor the father. But that brings up another argument, could a rapist petition to have the abortion of his biological child stopped? Could he technically try and stop an adoption from happening? Obviously not in your state where the laws are so black and white about "father's choice". But in other states where a father can intervene in adoption process, is it possible? Someone with legal background might be able to give me a better answer on my hypothetical situation.

Rape always about sex, but usually control and overpowering someone, and stopping his victim from having any semblance of a normal life via suing for custody just seems like the "checkmate" a lot of particularly vengeful rapists would seek out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And yet, your post shows the extreme differences in how people react to their abuse/attack.

You cannot possibly expect someone to react to their situation in the same way you did. Just as there are other women who didn't deal with their situation the same way I did.

Some women can "rise above" their attack, but as you mentioned as of right now there isn't a lot of support or help for women (or men) who have been sexually manipulated in whatever way. To expect someone to rise above their terrifying situation is unfair and cruel. Because not everyone is capable of that. As you know, recovery from rape or sexual abuse takes time, and in my experience it takes a hell of a lot longer than nine months.

I don't quite understand how someone could force another woman to:

- Carry a child that she never wanted in the first place

-That she never did anything to deserve

-To make her face scrutiny for being pregnant out of wedlock (surely many people won't know that she was raped)

- To make her pay for the medical expenses associated with pregnancy (this may or may not be the case depending on the adoption agreement)

-To make her go through the excruciating pain of childbirth, and sometimes just general pregnancy issues

-Her having to go through the pain of the adoption process (regardless of how you feel about your attacker, there has to be some loss associated for some women)

What if she has other kids? How is she supposed to deal with their questions and concerns?

Assuming she is in a relationship, will that end because they can't deal with her being pregnant with another man's child? What about work and school? If the pregnancy is difficult or medically challenging her having to leave work or school for more than just the six weeks postnatal is likely.

Then what if that kid comes looking for her demanding answers as to why she gave them up?

The problem that the child's existence creates extends long past the nine months of gestation. I don't see how it's fair or right to force a woman to basically be an incubator for someone else simply because she was a victim of chance.

For the record, psh. Loco? You are very smart. I don't think you are crazy at all. You are certainly the first victim i've encountered with your views so you are interesting to me. But not crazy.

I don't know about being smart. Sometimes I can be a smart-aleck.

I think the main difference between our perspectives is the value of the baby's life. The LDS church is unique in this case because LDS believe in the pre-mortal state and that the body is really nothing without the spirit entering into it. And LDS do not establish a timeline of exactly when this happens. So, being LDS gives me a more "understanding" stance of your perspective.

At the same time, my Catholic upbringing has given me insight to the potential of life at conception. And the more I look into it, the more I held fast to the belief that life at conception has value - the same value as what I would put on my own life.

So, when you look at it this way - all the stuff you pointed out becomes a "he or me" situation. Life for life. As far as my "worth" of life goes, nothing I have to bear - lest it ends in my death - is worth the life of a baby.

I guess that is why the Tim Tebow commercial resonated with me. It's a real example of my line of reasoning. Was Tim Tebow in utero not worth the sacrifices of his mother? Something to that effect.

Rachelle, I'm not saying you are wrong. Not at all. All I'm saying is - there is an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know from the perspective of someone who has been sexually assaulted....had I become pregnant from my attack i'm certain I would have killed myself rather than carry the child to term. I lived in a state at the time where abortions were not legal, and I had no way of going to a different state to attain one. I was so emotionally fragile at the time that I attempted suicide anyway, if I had to carry that vile human's child.....I certainly would have made sure that I succeeded.

If I am not mistaken you are convert and that happened before you were a member. I think you might have felt a bit different if you had the Restored Gospel at the time. We all make different decisions when we have the Gospel.

I know this isn't Church Doctrine, but I believe that before someone receives the Gospel, there is no sin that can't be blotted away by the atonement. After they receive the Gospel and choose to sin, that is a different story.

I think this goes back to the Fairness Doctrine. Heavenly Father forgives you for things you do that you don't know were wrong at the time.

Of course, all of this is conjecture on my part. None of us know how we will deal with something until we have to personally deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that brings up another argument, could a rapist petition to have the abortion of his biological child stopped? Could he technically try and stop an adoption from happening? Obviously not in your state where the laws are so black and white about "father's choice". But in other states where a father can intervene in adoption process, is it possible? Someone with legal background might be able to give me a better answer on my hypothetical situation.

I don't know how other states do it; but generally Dad has to do something to assert his paternity. (Utah makes the window in which he can do it smaller than most other states do, IIRC, and the process is a bit more convoluted than average.)

It's theoretically possible for a rapist (once he's aware that a pregnancy even exists) to try to gum things up on purpose, but the process offers several deterrents:

1) Legal fees (and at this point he's not just fighting Mom; he's fighting prospective adoptive parents whose means in all likelihood exceed his own)

2) Possible counter-allegations of rape, leading to more legal fees and potential jail time

3) If Mom's giving up baby, she's relinquishing her rights even if the adoption doesn't go through. So if rapist/Dad "wins", he faces the prospect of having to raise Junior alone. I would venture to guess that for the average John Q. Rapist, that would be something of a Pyrrhic victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken you are convert and that happened before you were a member. I think you might have felt a bit different if you had the Restored Gospel at the time. We all make different decisions when we have the Gospel.

I know this isn't Church Doctrine, but I believe that before someone receives the Gospel, there is no sin that can't be blotted away by the atonement. After they receive the Gospel and choose to sin, that is a different story.

I think this goes back to the Fairness Doctrine. Heavenly Father forgives you for things you do that you don't know were wrong at the time.

Of course, all of this is conjecture on my part. None of us know how we will deal with something until we have to personally deal with it.

And it is conjecture that is kinda off from Church doctrine. It is also off from the discussion, as most people are not LDS and do not share our understanding of doctrine.

All sins can be atoned by Christ's atonement. It only requires repentance. The timeframe for the repentance can be long for certain sins. But even King David was forgiven for his murder and adultery and will receive a kingdom of glory - even if it isn't exaltation.

All abortion can be forgiven. It is not considered on the same level as murder in the LDS Church. If an LDS woman has an abortion of convenience, she will be disciplined in Church, but can often be forgiven after a year or two, and be rebaptized. A murder, otoh, is not forgiven by the Church in this life, and cannot be baptized/rebaptized in this life according to current LDS policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share