Is having an abortion all right if you were raped by a family member? I am not for abortion but would love to hear views on this. There would be the possibility of the child having something wrong with it if the person who raped was a blood relative. So I do not agree with having a child suffer because of that. What does everyone else think?
Why does it have to be a family member? What if it is a 12 year old girl who is not physically, emotionally, fiscally or otherwise prepared to care for a child on their own? What if it is a woman who is raped by a complete stranger, whose resulting child would be an endless reminder of the violent attack that would haunt her for the rest of her life? What if it is a homeless drug addict? There are endless situations where bringing a child into the world would be unfair to both the woman and the child.
There are many ways to look at this of course Angie. One could look at the "gift of life". A commonly used argument for sure. That child could have been yada, yada good. Of course the child could also have been yada, yada bad. I'm talking contribution to mankind here and theoretically of course. I will not dwell on this part of the equation anymore than I will dwell on the possiblity of birth defects etc. Instead I will ask you and others about the mother of the child. How old are incest victims in general? Are they of the age of legal consent? I highly doubt it. I would surmise that most incest is NOT consensual and the victim is not of legal age. In other words nieces, daughters, sisters and even grand children being raped by a family member. So let's say that 14 year old Sally is raped by her 28 year old uncle Bob and becomes pregnant. Bob is found out and goes to prison for rape. He "pays his dues". Hooray uncle Bob. Meanwhile Sally has a child and even if that kid turns out well and they find a good home for said child Sally's head is messed up for life and has a reminder of it. Conversely Sally has an abortion with the consent of her parents but is still left with an emotional life time scar. A no win situation but a decision that should be left up to Sally and hopefully some supportive parents. P.S. Uncle Bob should have his jewels removed.
I think anyone who is raped, whether it's incest or not, should be able to get an abortion. They did not want that child, are not prepared for it, and shouldn't have to live with the consequences of someone else's crime and violence. Some people will say oh well they could give it up for adoption, but I don't think they should have to suffer being pregnant either. It makes you sick, you have to take time off work, and everyone would know what happened in your private life.
I don't think it should matter if a person was raped; the child should not have to give his/her life for the sin of the father. Even in the case of mental retardation or some other physical or mental defect, human life is sacred. Would you consider killing a person just because they were in a car accident or had a stroke and couldn't use all their mental faculties? I agree that rape, especially incest, is horrible, but there are so many people who would love a child and can't conceive. Don't make the baby pay for someone else's crime.
I think if a person truly believes abortion is murder, then he or she shouldn't think abortion is acceptable because of incest. As Iamloved1 says, the child is then giving up his/her life for another person's crime.
I really have a difficulty with questions like this. My views on abortion in general are ambiguous anyway (the product of the tension between a traditional Catholic upbringing and having liberal political views) but surely the underlying principle for those who believe that abortion is wrong is that an unborn child is a human being on exactly the same basis as everyone else, with all the same rights. We wouldn't think it was OK to put to death a six-month-old child because he or she was disabled as a result of being conceived by the rape of a blood relative. It's also interesting that you only suggest an exception might be appropriate if the incest was involuntary on the party of the pregnant woman. If it was solely the unborn child's interests that was driving the exception, why would that make a difference? There would be just as likely to be an abnormality in cases of voluntary incest (for example between a brother and sister of roughly the same age). It seems to me more likely that there's a moral judgementalism underlying this - ie. it's OK as long as it wasn't the woman's fault she got pregnant.
It seems like almost every facet of the abortion question is ambiguous at best and more often than not polarizing. We are probably never going to agree on it. I think that the final judge has to be the woman in question, who will make a personal decision based on her own moral tenets and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. I think abortion has to remain legal and accessible and the procedure needs to be made as safe as such a procedure can be and then we need to leave it at that.
I disagree with abortion and feel that a woman should carry a child to term, if she's capable of doing so--BUT--I also feel that a case-by-case decision should be made when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or if the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy. As someone points out, abortion can leave emotional scars. If a person is not strong enough to deal with the scars, either of giving up the child, raising the child, or aborting the child, then she should choose one of the other two options available to her. That is, if she can't bear raising the child, then she needs to choose what she feels is the lesser of two evils: abortion or adoption. As a counselor, I would suggest that she work closely with a mental health professional to ensure that she is making the best decision for her and not just one that is the result of an emotional response.
